Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2021-07-21 2020-2022 Hawaii County Council 19th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii July 21, 2021 INVOCATION: Pastor Jason Meechan of Kona Faith Center gave the morning's invocation. CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaii County Council was called to order at ORDER: 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Vice Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member(came in later) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance. (At this time, Ms. Kimball led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.) PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Petitions, MEMORIALS, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence. CERTIFICATES OF MERIT, AND (There were none.) EXPRESSIONS OF CONDOLENCE: STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Chuck Kealoha Leslie: Res. 166-21 (Comm. 326), in support. Krista Johnson: Res. 166-21 (Comm. 326), in support. Shaun Roth: Bill 44 (Comm. 281), comment. (See Comm. 281.46) Joe Belisario: Bill 44 (Comm. 281), in opposition. Valerie Corcoran: Res. 162-21 (Comm. 427), in support. (representing Kona Coffee Cultural Festival) Christopher Delaunay: Bill 44 (Comm. 281), comment. (representing Pacific Resource (See Comm. 281.33) Partnership) Dean Au: Bill 44 (Comm. 281), comment. (representing Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters) Recess: At 9:27 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:35 a.m. Carolyn Pellet: Res. 169-21 (Comm. 329); and Comm. 299.1, comment. APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval OF MINUTES: of Minutes. Vote on Approval Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to approve the Minutes of Minutes: of June 16, 2021. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Page 2 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions. Res. 153-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Provides for a five-year agreement with the Department of Research and Development to partner with the community to advance knowledge and innovation through data visualization, for a period of five years. Reference: Comm. 303 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-48 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 153-21 and Finance Committee Report No. 48. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We had a good discussion with department Director Douglass Adams at the last Council meeting, and I believe most of our questions were answered. I look forward to everyone's support. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Resolution 153-21, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 153-21: The motion to adopt Res. 153-21 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 48 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 3 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Res. 154-21: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF A ONE-METER DIVING STAND AND DIVING BOARD TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION The donation from the Hawaii HI-Diving Friends, valued at$14,750 would be located at the Charles "Sparky" Kawamoto Swim Stadium. Reference: Comm. 304 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-49 Vote on Res. 154-21: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 154-21 and (Adopted) Finance Committee Report No. 49. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 155-21: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF AN `ALALA (HAWAIIAN CROW) ENCLOSURE TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION The donation from the Friends of Pana`ewa Zoo, valued at$143,409.04 would be located at the Pana`ewa Zoo. Reference: Comm. 305 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-50 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 155-21 and Finance Committee Report No. 50. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could? CHR. DAVID: Sure, go ahead. Page 4 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The opening was Monday and, from what I'm hearing from the community, it was a very nice opening. And I just want to mahalo the Parks and Rec. (Recreation) staff and the zoo staff for making that a possibility for our community. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. As a representative for the zoo and for Sparky Kawamoto, the resolution before us, I really want to thank the community for providing for this. Myself, Council Member Kimball was actually at the zoo opening. It was a wonderful event. I'm really looking forward to all of our kids getting back there. They're going to be pleasantly surprised, and no doubt, they will love the experience at the zoo. So, thank you and thank you for this donation. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Well, thank you from the County Council for this very worthy donation, and looking forward to visiting the zoo. All right, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Res. 155-21: The motion to adopt Res. 155-21 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 50 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 162-21: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A GRANT TO KONA COFFEE FESTIVAL TO ASSIST WITH EXPENSES RELATED TO ITS 50TH KONA COFFEE CULTURAL FESTIVAL IN 2021 Transfers $2,500 from the Clerk-Council Services —Contingency Relief account (Council District 8); and credits to the Department of Liquor Control, Public Programs account. Reference: Comm. 317 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to adopt Res. 162-21. Seconded by Mr. Richards. Page 5 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Aloha, thank you. This is the first CRF (Contingency Relief Fund) for this next fiscal year for District 8, and it's to support the Kona Coffee Cultural Festival here in Kona, which has been a long-time event and community kind of gathering. Happy to have them back this year. There will be some digital kind of programming, and it's to support some of the supplies that they need to carry on this event after the break last year. So, being that it's the 50'', we can look forward to it being held November 4h through the 7h. And I ask for my colleagues' support on this resolution. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Res. 162-21: The motion to adopt Res. 162-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 164-21: AMENDS RESOLUTION 16-20 AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENT FOR NUTANIX HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Amends the term of the lease agreement from three years to five years. Reference: Comm. 324 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 164-21. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This item was waived to Council. The department and the Director are asking us to increase from a three-year agreement to a five-year agreement. This would actually be amending Resolution 16-20 from last year December. That is the purpose of this and the purpose of the waiver. The request to waive through Committee was due to the need to create an Page 6 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 RFP (Request for Proposals), and they need this amendment to pass in order to complete the RFP with the correct language. I'm hoping that the Director is available for questions, and that's all I have to offer at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Are there any other questions? If not, I believe you did that quite well, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, explaining the waiver request and the reason for expediting this resolution. Seeing no other discussion, all those in favor of approving Resolution 164-21, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 164-21: The motion to adopt Res. 164-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 166-21: URGES THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION(NOAA) TO PROMPTLY FINALIZE AND ISSUE ITS PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED RULE "PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS FOR HAWAIIAN SPINNER DOLPHINS UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT" (FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: 81 FR 57854; DOCKET NUMBER: NOAA-2005-0226) Seeks official implementation of proposed regulations on human interactions with Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins to allow for timely responses to alleged violations, thorough investigations, and the issuance of citations. Reference: Comm. 326 Intr. by: Ms. David Waived: RAWEEMC Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to adopt Res. 166-21. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, I can give up the chair if you folks wish, or I can just start to discuss. Okay. No objections, alrighty. Thank you very much, Council Members. And I really want to thank `Anakala Leslie this morning for his testimony. He basically summed it up in his 75 years of being a cultural practitioner and fisherman in Kona, as has his family and a lot of our families. Page 7 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 And what has been happening here—and I really appreciate them reaching out. We can get so caught up in our daily activities that we lose sight of what's happening in our own backyard until we witness it. This is really urgent and it's a desperate measure, I swear. I took a ride over the weekend, and our NOAA officials, their hands are tied; they can't do anything. And this proposed rule has been in the works since 2016. This resolution, I'm hoping that it will encourage and urge NOAA that the time to publish it is now. Before I go on, I just wanted to say and mahalo our businesses that are very sensitive to this issue. They comply with their responsibility, as Uncle Chucky said, to not impose on these precious animals because they rest during the day, as everybody knows it. The resolution is pretty self-explanatory. And the Kai Kuleana Network, these families have been reaching out for years and asking for help in asking NOAA to please help them. It's out of control. And given COVID (coronavirus disease), it has exploded to something that's very concerning. And so, this attempt is to hopefully have NOAA finally publish this important rule. And all I need right now is to express my sincere mahalo to the families of Kona who have been trying to help get this into the public domain, bring awareness to this serious problem we're having. Aloha to the DeBina `Ohana(See Comm. 326.1), the Kahulamu `Ohana(See Comm. 326.2), Elizabeth Hamm (See Comm. 326.2), Gretchen and Rafael Ramirez (See Comm. 326.3), Ms. Folena and Greg Smith (See Comm. 326.4), Mahealani Pai and the Pai `Ohana(See Comm. 326.5), Malia Kipapa and the Kipapa `Ohana(See Comm. 326.6), Shane Palacat Akoni (See Comm. 326.7)—mahalo—and Charles Young (See Comm. 326.8). These people have been in the trenches and have been doing this work for years trying to get this done. So, I really would request that this Council also encourage this rule to pass as soon as possible and save our environment and our animals that are very critical to us as a people. So, for now, I yield. Mahalo. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Chair David. Thank you for bringing this forward. I will continue to wholeheartedly support this work, but I just have to acknowledge the thoughtfulness that went into this resolution. I'm really always appreciating when we take a resolution and attach, as you did here, an exhibit of very grounding statements and a call to action. I'm really appreciating those. We've seen those in previous resolutions that really attach hard data and/or a call to action. And so, I am wholeheartedly supporting this resolution and Page 8 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 actually want to borrow some of this for some of the work that I need to be doing over on the Hilo side. So, thank you for bringing this forward, Chair David. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo for saying that. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just want to mahalo you, Chair, for bringing this forward. It's a wonderful resolution and we're all aware of that woman touching the seal. And with more and more tourists coming in every day, this is the kind of thing that we have to do to protect our island and all of our species here. So, mahalo for bringing this forward. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball and then Ms. Villegas. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah,just also wanted to lend my thanks, Chair, for bringing this forward. It certainly is timely with some of the other recent events we have seen. I do hope that if the press are listening, they pick up that we're talking about this today and put some information out there. Folks often think that, "Oh, this is a once in a lifetime experience. My one interaction is not going to affect these animals." And that is not the case. And so, I hope there is some coverage of this so we can get that out there both to our community and to the visiting public as well. Thanks, Maile, for putting this forward. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. Thank you. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, mahalo, Chair David, for picking up this big task, this complex resolution, and working with the community members and the advocates and the cultural practitioners to bring forward the will of the people of the residents here. Yeah. In Kailua Bay, this is just prolific, the dolphin chasing, which is really unfortunate. I appreciate the comments about current experiences by some of our visitors covered in the press from touching monk seals to honu. I had to chuckle this morning when drifting through some social media, and I saw someone post something suggesting people maybe pursue encounters with our local centipedes or cockroaches. And I found it kind of a comical transition of nobody would think to do that, right, because they might get hurt or that's gross. Well, magnificent creatures like the nai`a the dolphin—and our native monk seals deserve just as much respect for the potential danger. "Look with your eyes and not with your hands" is what we teach our toddlers, and so we'd just like for that message to continue to be shared when the visitors come into our shores daily. Page 9 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 But once again, predominantly, mahalo, Maile, and mahalo to the ka `aina community and Uncle Chuck Leslie for all of his work and diligence and the decades that he has seen things transition, for sharing his mana`o today. So, with that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Thank you and thank you, Maile, for bringing this up. Yeah, I certainly support it 100 percent. But you made a comment about how NOAA and I don't really know how this agency operates. I'm unfamiliar with their processes. But you said that their hands are tied and there's nothing they can do, and this thing has been sitting around since 2016. Can you kind of explain the dynamics of what's going on there? CHR. DAVID: Sure. Well, Number 1, it's a Federal rule. Number 2, it hasn't— the asn'tthe people have not been consistently reaching out and asking, "Please finalize this," okay. And so, when it came to me, they felt that since 2016 till now a different kind of push was needed, and maybe from us as a body with a resolution that will say, "You folks have had this. It's time to publish. Please do it as soon as possible." And I was told, in contacting the NOAA representative from the State offices, that they plan to, but then according to the community members, they've been hearing that for years: They plan to finalize publication. And so, this is just an urgent push. And I believe my desire to get into putting this forward, Mr. Chung, is the fact that the Kai Kuleana Network of Native Hawaiians brought it to my attention that now it has crossed over into the realm of asserting that chasing the dolphin is a cultural practice and tradition, which it is not. And that, if you can understand, that tweaked my interest because this is some and with social media, it's so out of control. But like I said, I have to acknowledge and thank the businesses that are so respectful of this and are complying. But at the same time, the people that are not complying are out of control. And I believe that if our DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) and our NOAA officials have something that they can hang their hat on that says, "You're in violation." They approach these people but they know they don't have a rule in place. And so, it's like spinning their wheels on trying to get them not to harass our dolphins. So, at this point, that's all I can say, and that was the driver for this. What I will do, if this passes, I will send all of these to our congressional delegation and hope we can get assistance from them. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, well, I'm still trying to understand this because we've got to be laser-focused in our approach to this, right. Page 10 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Right. MR. CHUNG: So, this is a Federal regulation. Who promulgates this or publishes? Is it NOAA or someone above NOAA? CHR. DAVID: I think it's above NOAA because NOAA MR. CHUNG: Okay. CHR. DAVID: Yes. NOAA had this, from what I understand from the attorney, they've had this proposed rule. Now, they've done what they needed to do and they forward it to the Feds. MR. CHUNG: And which department or agency is the one that will ultimately make the decision yay or nay on this? Because, that's where we've got to focus, right? CHR. DAVID: Right. MR. CHUNG: Because, this is urging NOAA. So, do they finalize and issue and then it goes to somebody else? Or once they finalize and issue ? CHR. DAVID: They have to finally publish, is what I understand. MR. CHUNG: Okay. CHR. DAVID: The publication is what has been delayed. MR. CHUNG: And what happens when it's published, then? CHR. DAVID: Then it becomes law. MR. CHUNG: So, who publishes it? Is it NOAA or someone higher than NOAA? CHR. DAVID: No, I think it's NOAA but it's their Federal branch higher than the local. That's what I was told, that the local State agency of NOAA did all the outreach. And now, they forwarded it to their head department or head organization, and they will be the ones to finalize. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Anyway, but— CHR. utCHR. DAVID: But they expected to have it Page 11 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I'm just trying to understand this thing. But it's neither here nor there, I guess, at this point. The main thing is we want to make an affirmative statement from this body that will support whoever is tasked with making that decision, right. CHR. DAVID: It was very difficult drafting this because in order to find out who's who and who to address it to. But I think we nailed it down as much as we could. And so, hopefully, on the final paragraph where we say copies are sent to, we're sending it to everybody. MR. CHUNG: So, it's the local NOAA CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. CHUNG: That has its hands tied because of something going on CHR. DAVID: It has to be finalized on the Feds' level. MR. CHUNG: Okay, all right. CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Maile. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair, and obviously, I'm going to support this. This just makes all the sense. It's funny that, in this day and age when we have the marine mammal legislation on the books for coming up on 50 years, we still don't quite have the rules quite right. But it does make sense. And the thing that really encouraged me to say something was this "chasing dolphins is a cultural practice." Obviously,people don't understand that dolphins play off the bow of a boat. They're not"chasing"them. But that's what they're using to market that. So, I think making a statement policy from our County is a good deal to try and nudge this forward. I'm definitely supporting. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Mr. Richards. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: I just want to note that Judge StranceI don't know if she wanted to contribute to this conversation or—you can just shake your head "yes" or "no." (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) Page 12 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. STRANCE: Good morning. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I just wanted to respond to Council Member Chung's comment about where NOAA falls within the Federal government. It's an agency within the Department of Commerce. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. MR. CHUNG: So, it's the Department of Commerce that is going to make the ultimate decision? MS. STRANCE: Depending on how the department sends out its rule-making authority, whether it's broken down by agencies, but it's thereally, I just wanted to respond to the broad umbrella within the Federal government. I suspect it's one of those larger departments like the Department of Commerce would have different agencies with delegated rule-making authority. So, it would be about finding out where within the Department of Commerce NOAA lies and funneling the energy that way. But since the resolution is being directed in part to our Federal delegation, I would think that they could help usher beyond that. But I just wanted to kind of give you that umbrella since the question was raised. MR. CHUNG: Well, if I could make a comment, then. That being the case, because I just looked at the list of people or agencies to whom this will be sent, but maybe if you could work with the Council and Maile in ascertaining or determining whether there are more places that need to get their hands on this resolution. MS. STRANCE: Sure. We can assist in untangling that. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. MS. STRANCE: Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I just want to thank everyone and, again, thank all the testifiers and their patience for this. And I'm hopeful that we can have this move forward. So, all those in favor of approving Resolution 166-21, please say "aye." Page 13 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Vote on Res. 166-21: The motion to adopt Res. 166-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, everyone. Res. 167-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS Requests access to various Department of Hawaiian Home Lands properties to allow the County to remove abandoned and derelict vehicles. Reference: Comm. 327 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 167-21. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This actually is a very, I think, pertinent resolution, and it was waived to Council to expedite the process. It's pretty straightforward. And I'm sure there will be questions because so many of our different communities are affected by abandoned derelict vehicles on DHHL (Department of Hawaiian Home Lands)property and it's an interesting subject. But I would say that I'm going to be voting with this today. I hope everyone else would, but looking forward to any comments from the Council Members. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Is there anyone from the Mayor's office or the Department of Environmental Management available? (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Deputy Director Brenda Iokepa-Moses and Solid Waste Operations Division Chief Gregory Goodale came forward to address the members of the Council.) Page 14 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. IOKEPA-MOSES: Yes, good afternoon. Both myself Brenda Iokepa-Moses, Deputy Director—and we have Greg Goodale here, Chief. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great to see you folks. I wanted to carve out a little bit of context for this conversation. Abandoned vehicles on Hawaiian Home Lands has been a long-standing problem, not just on our island but across the State. And I know for a fact that, for years, residents of Maku`u Homestead, every single month at commission meetings, would chime in and talk about this growing problem. And it was so unfortunate, but I'm grateful, but it took Ikaika Marzo and his reach on social media during an election year to highlight this for the department to finally step up and engage the County and come up with a plan on how to remove those vehicles. And so, I'm really grateful that there is a close working relationship between our County and Hawaiian Homes, but I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the community has asked for this for years. So, thank you, Greg, Deputy, for allowing your department to work closely with Hawaiian Homes to come up with an action plan. I know that because of your team, hundreds of vehicles of have been removed to date. But I do want you to just take a few minutes to provide an overview of how many vehicles we are talking about and what the plan is going forward,just because this is a great opportunity to provide those details out into the community, and who eventually is going to be footing the bill for this. MR. GOODALE: Yeah, so—good morning, Council Members. Greg Goodale, Solid Waste Division Chief. So, we did have an approach from Hawaiian Homes here a year, or a couple of years ago, actually, to do the cleanup that was out in the Maku`u area. That event, or our participation within the event that they were doing that cleanup brought in over a hundred vehicles that were abandoned on that DHHL property. And that was very successful. It was the disposal came from—the funds came from our Abandoned Vehicle Program Fund. So, since there was so much success with that, there was a request from DHHL regarding vehicles that were out in the King's Landing area, and obviously, we told them that we'd be happy to participate. But with anything like this that comes with there's just kind of the red tape that has to be taken care of, and this is part of that process. We believe that events like this are very positive, and we try and put whatever resources we can toward these types of activities and working together with the State, but also with other agencies as well. So, this particular case, we believe there may be upwards of a hundred vehicles out in that area. I mean, it's a very large area. The road goes out quite a ways from the parking lot right there at the end of Kalaniana`ole. But with our abandoned vehicle folks working closely with DHHL, we believe we'll be able to successfully remove. We won't know we won't have a final county until we actually get in there to actually do the work. But we'll be able to have some kind of a follow-up on that. Page 15 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 So, that's just kind of a little bit of the background on the history with the County working with DHHL on these types of activities. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chief Goodale, could you just clarify? Is ? MS. IOKEPA-MOSES: I just wanted to add to that. We had an event this past weekend, a mini event in Ocean View. We were able to pull up some 60 vehicles from Ocean View. Coming from a rural area, I understand the County's position with limited funds and these kinds of types of—these funding opportunities. But I also understand the great contribution that community groups can lend. We can have a great partnership within our community groups. We don't always have to foot the bill for the entire thing. And I think places like Ka`u, Pepe`ekeo, the Hamakua side, the distance, the cost of the towing is always the key factor. So, I'm going to be reaching out to our team here with the County of Hawaii. I'm going to be reaching out to communities around the island to see if we can come up with some collaboration. Because like I said, our funding is limited, but I believe enough people—we've gotten so much positive response from the event that we had this weekend about people wanting to help. They live next to someone that has five or six vehicles; it's an eyesore. They would do anything to try to get these vehicles taken care of. So, I think we can work together, get some sponsors that could probably help with the towing, which is always a big cost. We could bring our resources to the table so we can get this island cleaned up much faster. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy. So, I just want to confirm that Hawaii County is paying for the bill for all of this towing off of Hawaiian Home Lands, that there is no contribution by the department. I think their mics aren't working or maybe they can't hear us. CHR. DAVID: We're in recess for technical difficulties. Recess: At 10:15 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:38 a.m. CHR. DAVID: Aloha, everyone, I believe we solved our technical problems. We're back on the record. I'm calling this meeting out of recess. Ms. Kierkiewicz, you had the floor. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much, Chair. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. Page 16 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Just confirming I can be heard in Hilo. CHR. DAVID: Hilo, can you hear us? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, if not, we do have the director of the department here, and I'm sure he can answer the question. CHR. DAVID: Yes,perfect. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I know that Chief Goodale and Deputy Iokepa-Moses probably had deeper information, but I just have a few more questions. I want to be able to wrap this up and move on. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Aloha, Director. Great to see you. (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So, I know you were tracking the discussion, and one of the points that I wanted to clarify was who was footing the bill for which part of this project. So, there's the cost to tow. There's also the cost to dispose. So,just wondering what is County's kuleana and what is being taken care of by the Department of Hawaiian Homes. MR. MANSOUR: Thank you, Madam Chair, Council Members. Yes, the County will share in the cost of disposal, and DHHL will put up the money for towing. Because, currently, the way the system had, we collect about$12 through the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles)process to be able to dispose these vehicles. So, eventually, that money goes toward that disposal, not towing, especially if it's in private properties. So, DHHL agreed that they'll pay for the towing so we could dispose of the vehicles. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, that's helpful to know. Thank you. And then, Chief Goodale was talking about removing about a hundred vehicles. How long does that take? Because, I know we are limited in the number of tow companies that the County is working with. So, how long would it take to actually remove, say, a hundred vehicles? MR. MANSOUR: I think within a week, a couple of days, we could take about 20 vehicles . MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Twenty vehicles? MR. MANSOUR: A day. Page 17 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: A day. MR. MANSOUR: So, you're looking at about a week, two weeks to be able to handle those hundred vehicles. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And that's from, say, Hilo. But what about more rural locations, such as Puna or Ka`u? MR. MANSOUR: It's similar. We had an event this week, and we were able to, over two days, we were able to collect 57 vehicles just over the weekend. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. MR. MANSOUR: For Ocean View. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great to know. Soil remediation. Is that part of the discussion? Is that something that we are going to help to facilitate, or is that going to be solely in the wheelhouse of the Department of Hawaiian Homes? MR. MANSOUR: Solely in the department. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And then, is there any discussion between your department and DHHL around how we prevent this issue? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. We are partnering with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and we have a great relationship with them as we speak. So, we get (inaudible) with the issues with them. MS. IOKEPA-MOSES: Council from Kona, we can hear you guys and we can speak in even if we can't see each other. So, if you have any questions for Greg, he's still here. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Just looking for more details around this close working relationship resulting in what kind of action plans to prevent something like this from spiraling out of control again. MR. MANSOUR: I help—with our partnership, we could control it in advance. So, the communication is very vital to the success of this agreement. So, if our staff notices any change or any communication that's lacking actions so we could call directly the managers and the people on the top and be able to handle it. So, we're building a good relationship with them,not only for the abandoned vehicles but for also the sewer connections and other items. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I strongly encourage—and you probably are already doing this, but I'm not sure because I haven't heard it yet—your department working in Page 18 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 close partnership with homesteads rather than leadership at DHHL. I mean, I know that this Memorandum of Agreement creates space for that collaboration, but it would be so much more timely to deploy some of the services that we are providing through this MOA (Memorandum of Agreement) if there is that direct communication between the County and individual homesteads. So, I just wanted to plant that seed. MR. MANSOUR: Sure, definitely. We'll work on it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great, thank you. Chair, I appreciate the latitude. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz, and thank you, Director. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Good morning, Director Mansour. MR. MANSOUR: Good morning. MR. CHUNG: Of course, I support the overall concept here, but I'm kind of curious. Who approached whom in trying to strike this arrangement? Was it the County approaching the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or vice versa? MR. MANSOUR: Maybe Greg could give you a little bit of the history but— MR. utMR. CHUNG: Briefly, yeah. MR. MANSOUR: Yeah, our Division Chief. My understanding, given when the new administration took office, our goal was to pay attention into these abandoned vehicles countywide. And definitely, my Deputy Director Brenda, in her community in the oceanside Ka`u District—and definitely there's thousands of these abandoned vehicles. So, our goal was to reach out to all parties to be able to have an agreement to beautify our island. So, under the beautification, our goal was to get ahold of every department, every community. And even within our Public Works, Planning, we've been talking to them about the beautification of the `aina. And part of it, the major one, is get rid of these abandoned vehicles on private property or public properties. So, we're going to be coming to you soon on the Code changes. I kind of mentioned the $12 that we collect. Think about it: $12 a year, these cars. And the cost of disposal was about$400. So, when they were going to collect that cost at$12 a year. So, we're going to come to you as we move forward to strengthen that program through our Code. But it was, I think, common communication between the department. We have a goal. They want to also clean up the community. So, it's a win-win and that's what triggered that agreement. Page 19 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. CHUNG: Okay, and those are all worthy goals. I'm with you on that. You said you picked up 57 vehicles. I might not have heard the entire thing. Where'd you pick the 57 vehicles up from? Hawaiian Home Lands or somewhere else? MR. MANSOUR: No, that's for the Ka`u District, the oceanside collection event that we had this MR. CHUNG: Okay. So, that wasn't Hawaiian Home Lands. MS. IOKEPA-MOSES: Ramzi, we have Greg here. He was at the event this weekend. Greg, you want to go ahead and chime in on what happened this weekend? MR. CHUNG: No, it's not real important. I just wanted to make sure that we're not moving ahead beforeI wasn't too sure where the 57 vehicles had been picked up from. We don't need Greg. MR. MANSOUR: Yeah, it was a collection event to beautify—another beautification. We did it Saturday and Sunday. We were able to collect 57—our goal was 100 vehicles but we MR. CHUNG: So, we were just using that as an example of how quickly we can MR. MANSOUR: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Okay. And I apologize for having to ask these questions, but we don't really have anything in front of us other than we're just authorizing the Administration or the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Hawaiian Home Lands. We don't know what the scope is. Ms. Kierkiewicz brought up the cost factor, which is great, but let's see MR. GOODALE: Can you folks here us here in Hilo? CHR. DAVID: Yes, we can. MR. GOODALE: Oh, okay. We just weren't sure if you were hearing us. MR. CHUNG: Where are we picking those abandoned vehicles up from? Are we going to go into, like, well, I can't say "private"because these are Hawaiian Home Lands, but let's say there's a homestead property in Keaukaha. On the property, five vehicles that are derelict. Would this agreement that you guys are contemplating allow you to go onto that property and take vehicles? MR. MANSOUR: No. We only dispose of it. The DHHL will bring it to us for disposal. So, they tow the vehicle from their own properties. The current Code Page 20 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 does not allow us to go onto private properties. If it's not within the public right- of-way, we cannot access that vehicle. So, the current agreement before you is for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to bring the vehicle to us for disposal. They pay for the towing and they do the towing. MR. CHUNG: How about abandoned vehicles on Hawaiian Home roadways? MR. GOODALE: Just so we're clear MR. MANSOUR: If it's not aoh, go ahead. MR. GOODALE: Just so we're clear, it's any public land or the rights-of-way is what the Abandoned Vehicle program can tow from. So, anything which is DHHL land would be considered public lands. Same as with DLNR lands or parks; those are all considered public lands. So, the fund allows us to be able to tow from those public lands or also from the public or private rights-of-way but not from private parcels. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so, the scope of this agreement will only relate to private parcels, then. MR. GOODALE: It's just for the DHHL lands. MR. CHUNG: No, but there's—DHHL lands also include those lands that are being leased by the (inaudible). MR. GOODALE: Which ultimately would still be considered to be public lands. MR. CHUNG: So, you mean to tell me now the scope of this is to allow us to pick up derelict vehicles on properties that are under leases to beneficiaries? MR. GOODALE: This is primarily in what would be considered to be the right- of-way that gets out towards King's Landing. I don't know if you've been out on that road that runs out along the coast, but the vehicles are primarily along that right-of-way. MR. CHUNG: I'm hearing two things here, Greg. MR. GOODALE: But it's all considered public land. MR. CHUNG: Greg, I'm hearing two things from you. You're talking about public lands and then you talked about rights-of-way. I'll tell you what I'm getting at here, and maybe Mr. Rodenhurst who is here can come and confirm this. What is our responsibility as a County on Hawaiian Home roadways for maintenance? Page 21 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. MANSOUR: If it's Hawaiian roadways and it falls within the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, it's a public land, not a private land. MR. CHUNG: Correct. So, we would have maintenance responsibilities over those roadways, correct? MR. MANSOUR: Right. And I think roadway, Ikaika probably under Department of Public Works could address. MR. GOODALE: And just to be clear, those are not really truly considered like a dedicated road of any kind. It's really more of MR. CHUNG: "Those" meaning what? MR. GOODALE: Like a trail. MR. CHUNG: What do you mean "those"? MR. MANSOUR: I think the differentiation is you have two things. You have private property owned by private owners that we cannot access. If they have abandoned MR. CHUNG: Hawaiian Home Lands MR. MANSOUR: It's public. MR. CHUNG: It's all under the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. MR. MANSOUR: Right. MR. CHUNG: Right? But there are maintenance responsibilities when roads are laid out. So, Director Rodenhurst, what's our responsibility? I don't now offhand but I think we have some maintenance responsibility. MR. MANSOUR: When it comes to roads, I would leave it up to our public or director to answer. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so, Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. We do have an MOA with DHHL as far as maintenance. There are some details on that that are not readily available right now, but I know we do have a responsibility to help with maintenance of DHHL roadways. Page 22 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. CHUNG: Okay. So, this is all I'm getting at, and I don't understand what Greg was talking about, but it gets to the cost factor. We have to treat the roadways on Hawaiian Home Lands the same as we are treating those on our County inventory. So, if we're going to be charging the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands something for removal of derelict vehicles on things that we're supposed to be maintaining, I think the beneficiaries is going to raise holy hell. Okay? I'm just letting you guys know. That's why I asked if there's a difference. What's the scope of this? Are we going to go onto thoseI'm not going to say private properties because they're not private but those separate parcels of Department Home Lands inventory that are under lease to certain people? Are we going to go onto those properties, or is it only for roadways? Because, you've got to separate those things because now the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands entering into an agreement with you guys might be breaching their fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. You've got to be real careful on this thing, okay. We have responsibilities on rights-of-way. If it goes further, now that's a different story. That's something the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is going to have to work out with their beneficiaries. So, it's not as simple as it looks. I support it in concept, 100 percent. But are we now shifting the cost of what we're supposed to be doing onto the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands? That's all I'm saying. We don't have enough information. But I'll support it if you guys want, but take those things into consideration because you guys are going to get pushback from the beneficiaries. It seems really good on its face but just watch out. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Yeah, I want to follow up on Council Member Chung's question. So, Greg, are you able to give us a clear answer on that question of whether we will be going on to individually leased parcels? Are you able to hear us in Hilo? MR. GOODALE: I'm sorry. We're getting multiple voices coming through, so I can't quite hear clearly. MR. INABA: Greg, can you hear us? MR. GOODALE: I can hear you now. MR. INABA: Okay. Are you able to clearly answer what Council Member Chung was asking about, whether we will be going onto individual properties beyond the right-of-way into people's properties and taking vehicles from their properties, based on this agreement? Page 23 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. GOODALE: So, as it applies to the previous event that we did in Maku`u and the event that we are working on with regards to King's Landing, our understanding is the vehicles that will be towed are just coming from lands that are listed as Hawaiian Homes. There hasn't been any sort of discussion about vehicles coming off of individual leaseholds or the like. So, it's all been, as we've had our discussions with DHHL, it's all just been discussed that it's DHHL land. So, there's been, as I said, no discussion about towing vehicles from the leaseholds. MR. INABA: Okay. I'm still not clear. But with this extra kuleana that we're going into with this agreement, I know you folks have mentioned the numbers that you folks are capable of. How does that work in line with or against your normal activities, removing vehicles from our public roads, because we've had a hiccup here in Kona? So, I'm trying to see how this is going to affect a problem that's already been going on for us here. MR. GOODALE: So, as it applies to our program, when we did the program in Maku`u, there was no effect on our normal obligations for our Abandoned Vehicle program. So, this was done, essentially, in addition. Because, really, what it involves is our processor, receiving the vehicles. As was said earlier, the towing was taken care of through Department of Hawaiian Homes. So, the County, essentially, facilitated the disposal of the vehicles. Again, if we felt like this was going to have some sort of impact to our program, then we would probably think twice. We don't want to have something that's going to become detrimental to our program and our primary obligations, which is getting the cars towed off of the right-of-way. So, I have a strong belief that continuing to do these types of events are doable from within our Abandoned Vehicle program. We are looking at the possibility of needing additional staff to assist us with some of the things that we're looking at for our upcoming contract. But that really doesn't have anything to do with these events, particularly. But, yeah, like I said, taking on these things, we believe can be done without putting at risk any of our existing obligations. MR. INABA: In your agreement here that's before us is in perpetuity or for how long? MR. GOODALE: It's specifically just for theso, we identify it specific to the event. So, it is not something in perpetuity, no. MR. INABA: Which event are we talking—I don't have any specific event here. It just says that we're going to collaborate with DHHL on the removal of abandoned and derelict vehicles from various DHHL properties on the island of Hawaii. So, which event are we talking about here? Page 24 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. GOODALE: The one we're speaking to specifically in this case is the King's Landing. MR. INABA: So, why doesn't it say that so we can be specific as to what the scope of this resolution and the agreement is? Because, we're unclear here. We don't have a MR. GOODALE: I can't speak to that. MR. INABA: Copy of the agreement. So, we only have the resolution that doesn't explain where exactly it's happening. MR. GOODALE: Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't speak to the specifics about the way the resolution was written. MR. INABA: Is this from Finance? So, you worked with Finance and explained what the agreement was going to be? MR. GOODALE: To be honest with you, I don't know who drafted this resolution but we can find out. And if it seems like there needs to be more clarification, I'm sure that that could also be provided. MR. INABA: Yeah, I'm not comfortable with the wording here. And I think when we're going to be bringing things like this before the Council, we need to have crystal clear resolutions so that we know what you folks will be doing. I don't think I'll be supporting this today. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Lee Loy first. Go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. As a beneficiary of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, I'm glad everybody dug in, but I want to ping off of what Councilman Chung is saying. Because, first and foremost, it's an agreement between the County and the department, but the department's job is to serve the beneficiaries. And I have no information, as a beneficiary, that beneficiary consultation even happened for this to be moving forward. And what both Council Member Kierkiewicz and Council Member Chung are speaking of is this cost-sharing because, again, as Mr. Chung said, the beneficiaries going raise holy hell that they've got to provide cost-sharing when no other community has to do it except them. And so, the point here is what is the kuleana of the County and the rights-of-way because it doesn't make sense that the beneficiaries have to do cost-sharing in a right-of-way within their lands when someone in Sunrise Ridge doesn't have to. And we had a very robust discussion last term about speed humps and the cost- sharing there. What I also read here, which is what Mr. Inaba spoke about, is it is Page 25 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 in perpetuity. It doesn't speak of events. It doesn't speak of how long it lasts. And what I don't want is the County continuing to use this as leverage with the beneficiaries of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I think there's a lot more work that needs to go into this. Right now, I don't want to support it. If we can put a pin in it and really refine this, I would look forward to that. But first and foremost, I want to see that the beneficiaries were consulted and the department is actually serving the beneficiaries with this resolution. Thank you to all of my colleagues who really rolled up their sleeves on this one. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I think the best thing that could happen right now would be if we were provided a copy of the MOA, the agreement. This reminds me a lot of when we were addressing what was happening on Mauna Kea and looking for the actual agreement that was entered into, not just the resolution, which allows you via 46-7, which we all learned about, and really dove well into what HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 46-7 does. But that requires that the resolution be approved by the Council, which means an agreement can move forward. So, without us approving that, it doesn't happen. But there always seems to be this weird disconnect where we're approving something that's already been done and signed. That's what we saw during 2019-2020. So, please provide us with a copy of the MOA so we can fully understand what this means, what the wording is. In that way, you'll really show us what we're authorizing the Office of the Mayor and DEM (Department of Environmental Management) and DHHL to do on behalf of the County. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. And, Ramzi, again as I've stated, I certainly understand where you guys are coming from. The beautification is very important. We're not trying to give you guys a hard time, but I think you guys didn't really look at that aspect, this whole Department of Hawaiian Home Lands dynamic. What I would suggest, instead of preparing an MOA for us to look at because, then, that means if we decide to change it or if we disagree with the MOA, it's going to be "yea" or "nay" or have you guys revise it. At least if you guys could redo this resolution and then provide, within the body of the resolution, the scope, the particulars of what you guys are trying to do, then we could amend it. We could change it if we see fit. Right now, I'm not clear on what the scope is that's clear. About a year or two ago, we passed an ordinance, I believe, that allowed DEM to go on private property to collect derelict vehicles, off the roadways of course, not Page 26 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 onto the private properties. But if we can do that at the County's cost, how can we explain it to the beneficiaries on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands that they or their department, who is vested with the responsibility of providing benefits to them, is using some of the monies to pay for the removal, which should be done by the County anyway? Very difficult. What I'm going to do, though, is I'm going to ask that we defer this matter perhaps. We want to do this quickly. The intent is good, Ramzi, but we've got to work on the particulars I think. Ms. Lee Loy and others, Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, Ms. Kierkiewicz have—and all over the place, actually—areas with substantial Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. So, you can work with each of the Council Members on framing this thing. But I've got to ask for a slight deferral to the call of the Chair if that's okay. Motion to Mr. Chung moved to postpone Res. 167-21 to the call of Postpone: the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Mr. Richards. Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: No, it wasn't a comment on the deferral. I would support it if I was going to make a comment on the—okay for just a little latitude on that? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. You didn't have a chance to speak. MR. RICHARDS: Mr. Chung brings up a very valid point, as does Ms. Lee Loy. They are members of the County. Even if they live on Hawaiian Homes, they're still members of the County. And since this is a County function for County constituents and members, this is County business. And so, I fully support the deferment to get these details worked out because this is very reminiscent of the speed hump conversation. And we've got to get this thing worked out. So, I fully support the deferment on that. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Ms. Kierkiewicz, on the Postponement. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. On the deferral, I guess we also want clarity as to why this is coming forward now, considering the department worked with Hawaiian Home Lands last year to remove all those vehicles in Maku`u. So, I'm just curious what has changed to cause you folks to bring this forward. So, wanting to get an explanation around that when we see a revised, more detailed version of this. And speaking to what Council Member Lee Loy said, really ensuring equity, right. Just because you're a homesteader doesn't mean that you should have to pay extra. We certainly don't want to be burdening our `ohana unnecessarily. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. Page 27 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. LEE LOY: On the deferment, yes. Thank you for everyone to bring clarity around that. I think the other part that's really missing is it's wonderful to go ahead and clean it up, but it's got to go somewhere. And I don't even know if we have facilities that can take all of these abandoned vehicles and begin to house them. And so, I just want to make sure that we have a very clear plan. It's one thing to beautify our island and our neighborhoods, but they have to go someplace. And I have a lot of heartburn because those facilities are on Hawaiian Home Lands. They're down in Pana`ewa. So, here we are cleaning up not only our homestead lands but we clean up other neighborhoods. And guess where the facilities to house these derelict and abandoned vehicles are. On homestead lands. So, when you ask us to pay to remove it from our community while we still pay to carry everybody else's burdens, it's enough. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, and thank you, everyone, for the discussion. Really take to heart what this body is saying because it is accurate and it is true. These are two different, separate issues when it comes to Hawaiian Home Lands issues and responsibilities. So, I do support the deferment, and that doesn't minimize what you folks are actually doing, what the Chief's doing right now in our communities because but that is a total different story, okay. And so, glad to help with that part in our respective communities, but there's a definite line between Hawaiian Home Lands and community-based actions. So, on that, on the postponement to the call of the Chair, all those in favor please say Ic aye. Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Res. 167-21 to the call of the Chair Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Lee Loy — 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: So, this matter is deferred to the call of the Chair, Mr. Clerk. And if it's okay with everyone, can we move, since we have Director Rodenhurst here, could we move to Bill 44? Thank you, Mr. Mansour. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: Page 28 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 44: AMENDS THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CODE, BY: 1) ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 5B (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE) AND 5C (EXISTING BUILDING CODE); 2) AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE): SECTIONS 5-1-2, 5-1-3, 5-1-5, 5-2-2, 5-2-3, 5-2-4, 5-4-21, 5-8-4, AND 5-10-1; 3) AMENDING CHAPTER 5A (BUILDING CODE): SECTIONS 5A-1-3, 5A-1-6, 5A-3-21, 5A-3-22, AND 5A-3-27; 4) AMENDING CHAPTER 5D (ELECTRICAL CODE): SECTIONS 5D-1-3, AND 5D-1-6; 5) AMENDING CHAPTER 5E (ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE): SECTION 5E-1-6; AND 6) AMENDING CHAPTER 5F (PLUMBING CODE): SECTION 517-1-6 Reference: Comm. 281 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) Approve: PWMTC-8 Postponed: July 7, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards, to pass Bill 44 on first reading.) (Note: The following communications were circulated: 1) Comm. 281.16, from Council Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder dated July 16, 2021, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 44; 2) Comm. 281.17, from Council Member Rebecca Villegas dated July 16, 2021, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 44; and 3) Comm. 281.18, from Public Works Director Steven Rodenhurst dated July 20, 2021, transmitting a fact sheet summary report titled "Mitigation Saves.") CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I know there are a couple of amendments, but I was actually hoping to have Deputy Corporation Counsel Dalilah Schlueter come forward. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Dalilah Schlueter came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. LEE LOY: I know there were a lot of questions around the ability to amend and what kind of authorities we had. And so, I just wanted to have Ms. Schlueter pick that up and then maybe we can figure out what we're doing after this. Deputy Director Schlueter, thank you. Page 29 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: Good morning, Council Members. Yes, our office has taken a pretty significant amount of time to look over the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the legislative intent of those statutes, as to how far the County could go and in what directions the County can make amendments to the Hawaii State Building Code. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 107-28, the County is to amend and adopt the Hawaii State Building Code. Within that statute, they do discuss the County's ability to amend under Chapter 46-1.5 (13). And 46-1.5 (13) discusses the County's powers to amend, essentially, so long as the County is not intending to defeat a State statutory scheme or State law by its amendments. The legislative intent regarding Chapter 107 was very clear. Act 82, that enacted Part 2 of Chapter 107, was very clear that the intent of the State is to create a State statutory scheme by its State Building Code. Thereby, the analysis is that the amendments cannot weaken the State's Code. The County would have the ability to make additional amendments that don't tend to defeat what's stated in the law as the minimum standard, which is what is set by the Hawaii State Code. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Dalilah. Those are big words if you're not in the legal field. And so, maybe just trying to simplify a little bit: The State codes were to provide uniformity. Is that kind of an accurate analogy? MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And so, that uniformity was to basically set the baseline or the floor or basically what every municipal would adhere to to provide uniformity across the State. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. And under the purpose of Act 82, the Hawaii State Legislature discussed that their intent was to come away from each county having their own codes and bringing the State under a uniform scheme. MS. LEE LOY: So, the State Building Code Council, through the State Legislature, kind of enacted this body to provide just a level playing field for everyone. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. And as stated in Chapter 107-28, the counties do have ability to amend that Code so long as the intent is not to defeat the State statutory scheme, which that brings the analysis to state that the State Code is a minimum standard set. And the counties can amend so long as they're not defeating a minimum standard set by the State. MS. LEE LOY: So, in my head, the minimum standard is the floor. If we propose an amendment that goes below the floor,we're defeating a State statute, therefore, out of bounds. Page 30 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. So, if you go below the minimum standard set by the State, that would mean that our County ordinance would then be preempted by State law. So, we'd essentially be conflicting or in violation of State law by making an ordinance that's conflicted. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And I'll let others propose their amendments, but I just wanted to set the framework on how this is all kind of going to move forward. We had a lot of conversation around safety and cost. Statutorily, does some of that speak to the safety aspects of the Code? MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. So, under the definitions portion, 107-21 indicates the codes and standards that—and these are the codes and standards that the Hawaii State Code is based upon. And this is verbatim: The nationally recognized minimum requirements that shall be met for design and construction to safeguard life, property, and the general welfare. MS. LEE LOY: So, again, that's setting the floor as far as safety goes. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. I also want to call my attention to Communication 281.18. Director Rodenhurst, you provided this to us. I think there were some questions around the cost, right, and we were talking about "ounce of prevention and pound of cure." There were a lot of questions about what these safety aspects of the Code provide, right. We all know there's cost involved. We can't get away from it. But this particular Communication (281).18 actually speaks to that. Director Rodenhurst? (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Steven Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. RODENHURST: Yes. Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. This study was found by Deputy Building Chief Neal Tanaka. And you've read of this to myself—provided this in communication so that we're aware of this study put forth by the National Institute of Building Sciences, going over the benefit cost of adopting codes, as well as other items such as what happens if structures are designed above codes, building retrofits, and some other items that are beyond this topic today. It includes one of the items being that the overall benefit cost-ratio for adopting the Code is 11 to 1, that we are going to see $11 saved for a dollar invested in adopting the Code. This is based off of a national study. Some of the agencies involved in this include FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), the U.S. (United States) Department of Housing and Urban Development, Page 31 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 U.S. Economic Development Administration, International Code Council, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety,National Fire Protection Association, and the American Institute of Architects. MS. LEE LOY: Great. And, Director Rodenhurst, on that communication, there's a chart, right, and the information you speak to for every dollar invested we save $11. But we also know Hawaii Island is subject to a bunch of other things, and I think that particular chart also speaks to wind, which was something we were talking about. And if I'm reading that chart correctly, it's for every dollar, we save ten. And then for earthquake, which we know Hawaii Island is subject to and very different from someplace like Kauai, it's for every dollar invested, it's $12. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. And this is the executive summary of a larger study, the link of which was included in the communication. It is quite a robust document. If I'm not mistaken, there are 600 pages. But this is a summary in this table, and this is based off of national averages. So, yes, for wind, it's $10 saved for every $1 put forward in adopting the Code, and $12 saved for every $1 for adopting the Code for earthquakes. MS. LEE LOY: Great. Thanks. Thanks, Director. Thanks, Dalilah. I just wanted to bring everybody up to speed. I think we had a lot of questions when we left it here. I hope that helps everyone kind of level set, I think is the right way to put it. With that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Villegas, your light's on. Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Thank you for being here, Dalilah, and thank you, Judge Strance. I know we'd spoken a little earlier in the week. My first question relates to the timing of this, which has been a big question. And it's my understanding that there was some conflict in beliefs on when the timetable started and whether or not it started when the State Building Code Council voted to adopt or when the State Legislature voted to adopt, and based on the differences between those that give us a different timeframe for when we need to make these decisions for adoption. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, Council Member. So, one piece to put in there as well, there's been a lot of discussion on timeframe. There's the piece of what's the County's deadline to adopt something, whether it be Bill 44, what have you, or when the County will be in default. And there's also the piece of if we are at that default point, what version of the Code we default into. I know that this is really complex, and it's taken me a lot of time to understand and come up to speed with both of those pieces as well. Page 32 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 So, to start with the point at which a county would default one way or another, based on the administrative pause, the deadline set is August 31st, 2021. And that means prior to that— MS. hatMS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just want to go back to, because there are a lot of questions about the legality of the declared administrative pause. So, I'm trying to get the answer. From what my understanding was, the Attorney General's belief was that the timeframe started as of adoption by the State Legislature's vote, which does not make us abide by the October 31"deadline. It gives us until 2022. MS. SCHLUETER: So, to jump into that, that has to do withso, the timeframe that you're looking at, you're looking at the timeframe fromso, the international are model codes published. And then, the State has two years from that point in time to amend or adopt, and that's per HRS 107-24. And if the State fails to do that on their timeframe, then they default. Correct? And then from time that the State adopts, there's another timeframe of two years. MS. VILLEGAS: For the counties. MS. SCHLUETER: For the counties to adopt. So, the challenge right now, if we're looking at the 2018 IRC (International Residential Code), which this Bill 44 is partially based upon, the initial printing of the international code came out in August of 2017, okay. So, then, that is upon the State. The State's two-year timeline started at that time. In August 2019, which would have been the State's deadline to accept that— amend hatamend and adopt that, the State had not done so. So, the State was defaulted to the 2018 unamended edition in August 2019. The State Building Code Council did make those amendments, and they did get passed through the State Legislature in November of 2020. So, that's where starts our discussion to kind of get it right, the discussion of what's our County's deadline for the 2018 edition of the IRC. MS. VILLEGAS: Has a ruling come from the Attorney General's office? Because, that is a big part of this right now. There's a push to get this passed based on a perceived timeframe, but that's been brought into question and still seems to be in question. So, I'm looking for clarification on that answer because that's going to determine why or how we're pushing this. MS. SCHLUETER: Okay, and I hope you'll give me the latitude to pause on this 2018 Code. We've got to go back and look at the 2012 Code. Now, our County would have been in default of the 2012 version of the Code November of 2020, and that's the point in time the County took that administrative pause or administrative grace period. Page 33 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: But we passed Bill 179. MS. SCHLUETER: That only covered a portion of the IECC (International Energy Conservation Code), or excuse me, a portion of the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) that did not cover the IRC or the IEBC (International Existing Building Code), which are the subjects of Bill 44. And I guess one more thing that kind of helps with clarification, when we're talking about the building codes, we're talking about multiple sets of codes. So, we've got the IBC (International Building Code), the IECC MS. VILLEGAS: Can you say what those acronyms stand for? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. The IBC is International Building Code. The IEBC is International Existing Building Code. The IRC is the International Residential Code, and the IECC is the International Energy Conservation Code. Those are the ones we're talking about. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. That's not just for me but for everyone else listening and paying attention to this because acronyms will be the death of all of us. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, I agree. So, those sections are colloquially referred to as the "family of codes." And I know that there's a lot of confusion there because there's so many moving parts with when different versions have been published in the past and where we're at on those timeframes. So, if we're just focusing on the IRC, the 2012 version passed the State on November 13, 2018. So, the County of Hawaii had a deadline of November 13, 2020, to pass the 2012 version. So, that's why I say we're kind of dealing with a couple of different timelines when we're discussing that piece. MS. VILLEGAS: Because we didn't do that, right? MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. And that's when the administrative pause was MS. VILLEGAS: Requested from the Governor but not necessarily approved. MS. SCHLUETER: So, that administrative pause was granted by the County to itself until the end of August 2021. So, at this point in time, after this pause resumes—and for argument's sake, if we say that our August 31, 2021, is a hard deadline, which we do believe it is a hard deadline, then something else other than what's in existence right now will be in place after that point in—will be in place by default after that time. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, which would be 2012. Page 34 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: That's the next part of the discussion as well. So, which Code would we be defaulting into? Based on the plain reading of Chapter 107-28(b), if a county does not amend the Hawaii State Building Code within a two-year timeframe, the Hawaii State Building Code shall become applicable as an interim County Building Code. If we're in default today, the current Hawaii State Building Code is the 2018 version, as amended. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, I have a question, then, because Bill 179 shows that there was no nexus between. And one of the things that was claimed was that COVID was kind of this nexus to make that self-imposed pause. There was no nexus between COVID and County business because Bill 179 was passed during COVID. So, why didn't we do 2012 amendments? This just constantly gets there's so much irony in here for me, particularly because when we talked about—and I appreciate what you said before—is that the counties your statement was the counties can't make any changes to the Building Code that would make it less safe or creating the floor. However, as we saw with the air conditioning, we made that amendment, and that was made quite quickly. And some might say that that made that less safe, but the County was in the position to make that change. And we did so. My other question, then, because I don't feel like I'm getting the answer I'm looking for because it seems to me that there is opportunity for us to be looking at the end of 2022 for our deadlines, based on when the State passed and voted based on the State Legislature. They were late. I get that. But then when they passed it, that starts our two-years, which would give us until next year. Right? MS. SCHLUETER: Based on that discussion MS. VILLEGAS: And isn't that the Attorney General's opinion? Point of Information: MS. LEE LOY: Chair,point of information. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, because I've heard Ms. Villegas mention the State Legislature three times, and I don't know the State Legislature to have passed this. So, I'm having a MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, I may be misstating it. But you mentioned there's the State Building Code Council that made a vote,but then, there was another vote or adoption that happened based on a different timeframe. MS. SCHLUETER: Yeah, so, if I'm understanding correctly, we're talking about when the State was in default for their inactivity versus when the State made their amendments and adoptions? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, thank you. Sorry, different, yeah. Sorry. Page 35 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. VILLEGAS: Too many (inaudible) and acronyms. MS. SCHLUETER: So, when the State made their amendments and their adoptions, that was November 17, 2020. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Well, I'm going to yield at this time. I have a lot more questions, but they're more—and statements but they're more related to my amendments that I've brought forward on Bill 44. I was really hoping for some more clarity for potentially the Attorney General or an actual statement about what the attorney generalsbecause that's what we asked for at our last meeting, was what was that determination. Because, that determination dictates when our deadline is. Right? Because essentially, I mean, if somebody really wanted to challenge the legality of a self-imposed pause, it puts us in default anyway. Right? So, if this opportunity to have until 2022 to get this sorted and taken care of, to me there's an advantage in that, versus the rushing to get this passed so we don't default. But in essence, my question is we already defaulted because we created a self-imposed pause that the Governor never gave us permission for. So, I'm looking for clarification from the Attorney General on where we stand on that timeframe, and then we can go into all the other fun details. And my apologies for MS. SCHLUETER: So,just for my clarification because I want to make sure that we're getting what you're asking for, is you want the Attorney General's position regarding the administrative pause, this extension to move it up. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, that would be nice as well, but what I wanted was the Attorney General's decision on what date we're held to. If the State voted on its amendments and adoptions, versus on when the State Building Code Council did their, like—because if there's an opportunity—and I see Judge Strance standing there, so I'm not sure if she wants to jump in—but that's what I'm looking for. Because if we have more time, to me, when things get pushed this hard and this fast with this many different complications, I'm also aware that the PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) dissolved itself yesterday and there were legal questions about that even being viable and legal under the Sunshine Law. So, there's just so many things rolling around here that are really uncomfortable for me personally. So, that's where I'm coming from, looking for that legal decision from the AG (Attorney General). Judge Strance, do you have something to share? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) Page 36 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. STRANCE: Yes, thank you. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. So, I want to acknowledge your confusion and it is confusing. So, I'm going to take a step back and then step forward, if it's all right. There are lots of laws that are enacted across the country that are called uniform laws. So, in our probate code or how we handle checks, negotiable instruments, and those sorts of things, those laws are often generated by a national organization, and then they come to the states and the states can either adopt them or modify them. With the Building Code, it's a little more confusing because you have this national organization, which is consistent with what happens with uniform laws. They make a recommendation and then the State adopts it or amends it, okay. In this particular case, the Legislature has carved out a sliver or a piece of the pie where County government has the authority to make changes. When I think of the deadlines with all these different codes, the image that comes to my mind is when I do my you do a sound check on a microphone and you have all these bars that go up and down. That's a little bit of what's happened with this family of codes. So, the vision is that things will happen in a certain order, and it doesn't always happen in that order. And so, the whole timeframe is moved off. Now, we're going to compound it with a COVID epidemic and proclamations which states certain governmental functions. So, we were going on course with the Building Code. The State didn't act. And then, there was the proclamation. In direct response to your question, Council Member Villegas, the Attorney General is not the final authority on the interpretation of the proclamation. Eventually, it might be the Supreme Court of the State. It's an opinion. It's what they believe things to be. Sometimes, we look at Attorney General opinions and we say, "Yes, we agree." Sometimes, we look at Attorney General opinions and we disagree, and so there's a disagreement between two legal departments looking at the same thing. Or the question asked that the Attorney General might have been in one context, and we're being asked to look at it in a different one. And so, it's as clear as mud. What appears to me to be critical is for this body to determine which floor it wants to implement. Do they want to default to something because there wasn't action before, or does it want to move forward and adopt something within a timeframe that our best judgement reflects? And that really is what it is, is our best assessment and judgement based upon the research that has been done to draw a conclusion. And I really appreciate the depth that Dalilah has gone into this because it's not easy and it's not clear. And we know that when we come before you, you're going to ask us what's the right answer, and we're going to give you our best assessment of what the right answer is. And the directive that I've given my deputies is that we're going to give you our best assessment of the right answer. Page 37 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 And if it's an unanswered question of law, if it is fact-dependent, if there are other circumstances, we're going to tell you that and tell you what the buffet is, but we're going to give you our recommendation and our best assessment of what's been done. I've been working pretty closely with Dalilah on this, and to say that she's done a deep dive would be an understatement. So, when she says that this is her conclusion, it's really based upon looking at a lot of different factors and putting them together, and drawing a conclusion. So, if the Council says, "Well, we think that it's a buffet, and we're going to do something different,"you folks have that authority to do it. But our best recommendation is that would be a more periled decision than to go forward with the deadline that's been articulated and concluded by our office. You might be used to having counsel come in and tell you, you can do it or you can't do it, I prefer not to do that. If there's not a Supreme Court decision that says, "This is the answer,"I would prefer to tell you, "This is our best judgement, and here are the risks of not going forward." But that's what it is. And so, I want to put some of it in context because when you said, "Well, I want the Attorney General's opinion on this,"well, that's not a court decision. That's another government agency. In Dalilah's research, there has been discussion about whether the State should take all of the authority away from the counties to amend building codes so that there is the maintenance of just a single code across the State with no adjustments. That hasn't happened yet. So, this is a unique area of law where when the State stepped in, it didn't step all the way in. It carved out certain portions. The International Building Code and our State statutes don't create a penalty for not adopting on time, but it does create default provisions. And so, the default provisions that we would default to are also things that haven't been considered by this body. And so, the recommendation is to consider this one, knowing that you can't go below floors. So, a lot of what needs to be done, you don't have a lot of discretion in. And then focusing work on these other pieces. But let's get the baseline in place and not worry about all these ups and downs and kind of"who's on first and what's on second"kind of discussions. The recommendation is to get this baseline set, and our best assessment of what's the deadline that you're working under to set a clear baseline is the end of August. If that date passes MS. VILLEGAS: Is that for the (inaudible)? MS. STRANCE: There will be a lot of confusion about which version of the Code has been defaulted to. And so, if there's a sense of urgency around that, I Page 38 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 think that's true. I know that you folks are very concerned about confusing the public. I think it's probably, I mean, we're there but it may be more confusing to, over a period of several months, have the possibility of different floors in place. So, I really wanted to set some additional context because I know how important it is for you folks to feel like you're doing it right. In this case, the deadlines are not clear, and they're not clear for just one reason. It's unclear for multiple circumstances that have arisen. MS. VILLEGAS: Could I just ask some specific questions, then, for myself to get specific answers to, as much as you can within the framework of the best answer you can have at this time? So, when the County sent the letter to the Governor, was that acknowledging that the State had the ultimate authority not the County? MS. STRANCE: I think that there's been confusion on that. MS. VILLEGAS: Some latitude? CHR. DAVID: Okay, can you MS. VILLEGAS: A couple more questions and then MS. STRANCE: You're talking about the proclamation? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Okay, I'm going to give you a little bit more time because other Council Members are wanting to speak. Then, we can come back to you. MS. VILLEGAS: Yup. Okay. CHR. DAVID: Thanks. MS. VILLEGAS: I guess, assuming that the administrative pause was—let's just assume it wasn't legal—doesn't that mean that the County adopted the 2012 IBC by default? MS. STRANCE: First, I don't want to assume that something was illegal. MS. VILLEGAS: So, safer to assume that it was legal? MS. STRANCE: Well, I don't want to say that a conclusion is drawn. I think that there are two different ways to look at that. Page 39 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: At least. But I`ll go ahead and yield right now. Thank you for doing this dance with me. MS. STRANCE: Thank you for muddying the waters even further. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, yeah. MS. STRANCE: I appreciate the difficulty this is for you folks because it's a complicated area of law. The deadline assessments are confusing. And figuring out what part of the pie you have to work with is actually more clear than the rest of it but it's not easy. And so, we're trying to give you our best assessments. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Strance, and thank you, Ms. Villegas. I'm going to go to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder right now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the discussion. I just want to clarify, Dalilah, if you can. So, 2018 IBC was adopted when? MS. SCHLUETER: We can talk IBC or IRC. IBC is not part of Bill 44, but the timeframe is going to be the same, if that helps. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. MS. SCHLUETER: So, both the IBC and IRCI'm going to back that up. They're not the same; I misstated. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. MS. SCHLUETER: So, the IBC is not part of this bill. That one's timeframe is a little bit different. Sorry, I'm looking at my chart here. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's okay. Like you said, it's confusing. But we're going to sum it up then we can move. MS. SCHLUETER: Yeah. So, focusing on the IRC, which is part of Bill 44, I just want to say, so, the international code was published August 2017. The State was in default per 107-24(c) in August 2019. The State, then, made amendments and adopted the amended version of 2018 IRC on November 17'', 2020. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, same date I got. Thank you. And then, the IBC, International Building Code, was adopted, looks like April 20'', 2021, was the effective date that I have. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. So, the IBC—and I know we're kind of going outside the scope since it's not part of Bill 44 but same first printing of Page 40 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 the international code was August 2017. The State was in default—the same default—August 2019. And then, the State made their amendments and adoptions of the 2018 IBC on April 20'', 2021. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then, right now, the current State Building Code is 2018, oh, sorry MR. RODENHURST: I just wanted to clarify with the State Building Code, that includes the IBC as well as the IRC and the IEBC. International Building Code, the International Residential Code, as well as the International Existing Building Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. And so, current State Building Code right now is? MS. SCHLUETER: Today, it's the 2018 edition, as amended by the State. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Is there any difference between the effective date and the adoption date when I'm looking at State records as far as the building codes that were adopted? One and the same, effective and adopted, correct? MS. SCHLUETER: So, speaking as to the IRC, when we're saying, "amended and adopted," sorry, I might be missing something. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm on ags.hawaii.gov and I'm looking at the different effective dates of each code. And so far, all of their numbers have lined up with yours. Effective 11-17-2020, the IRC was adopted and when it was effective. And that's the wording on their site: "Effective date: 11-17-2020." MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so, let's try to just nail this down. And there's been some discussion so far, and this is where it gets a little bit unclear: Is it four years from when these are done across the board for everybody federally, or is it two years after the State? That was an interesting point that I thought was worth clarifying because it's different: four years from when it's adopted internationally or four years total for both State and County. MS. SCHLUETER: None of the statutes discuss or contemplate a term of four years, but I understand where you'd pull the four years because 107-24(c)puts two years on the State. And it states,just to be clear, it states that if the State does not amend or adopt, does not accept that international code within the two-year time limit, that code or standard shall automatically become part of the Hawaii Page 41 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 State Building Code until superseded by the adoption of an amended version of the code or standard set by the State Building Code Council. So, that's what that states. And then, we move on to 107-28, which is the County's timeline. The County, it states it slightly different. If the County does not amend the Hawaii State Building Code within the two-year timeframe, the Hawaii State Building Code shall become applicable as an interim County Building Code. So, the difference that I'm looking at is that the State says that automatically it becomes part of their Code, whereas the County says it becomes the interim code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SCHLUETER: But neither one says four years. Because, the County statute that we're looking at, 107-28, does not reference the date of publishing of the international code. So, our timeframes are solely based on the State. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then, by reading just by the plain language that I'm hearing so far, if we don't do this, we adopt the State's 2018 international codes, as amended. Correct? MS. SCHLUETER: That's my analysis; yes, that's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does that sound right to you, Director Rodenhurst? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, that's my understanding; we would adopt the current State Building Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That was my question so far. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. Let's see, where do I begin. I guess it's best to say that I don't like this process, okay. And it's a process that's very difficult to understand because we're dealing with a State statute or State statutes that are poorly drafted. I'm going to demonstrate why. But after I do that, I will say this: I said the last time that I was only looking at roof sheathing, right. I wanted to come up with an amendment that would maybe lessen the restrictions on roof sheathing. So, I spent the last two weeks looking at this, not at the particulars now of the Building Code or Residential Code, but what our authority was and it's mind boggling. I was in San Francisco for like a few days last week, and I was still looking at this thing. It was very difficult to understand. I was trying to find a way to allow us Page 42 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 to amend or at least allow me to make my amendment. But the more I thought about it, I said to myself, look, if I were to put my legal reputation on the line, I couldn't come up with something that would be cute and justify me putting in that amendment. I just couldn't. More likely than not, we're stuck and that's why I don't like this process. And I think doesn't the State Building Code Council come under DAGS (Department of Accounting and General Services)? I'm not really too sure. But these guys are pretty much doing whatever they want. They're design-heavy. They're DAGS, right? Yeah. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. CHUNG: They're design-heavy. When you look at the membership of this council, there's not really any policy-makers in there. Look, we heard people from the carpenters, Pacific Resource Partnership; they're talking about livable wages. That's one policy consideration. That actually, in many ways, goes against another policy consideration: affordable housing. But there's nobody at the table advocating affordable housing at that council. Yeah, you have some of the building trade people in there but it's all design-heavy. And that's why they keep on going up, up, up. These minimum standards keep on going up without consideration of the practicalities involved. It's very difficult, frustrating for us who are tasked with trying to set some really good policies for our island, and knowing full well that one island might be different from the other. But now, let me go to my journey on determining whether we could or could not amend. The first thing we've got to look at, well, it's axiomatic, right, that the councils, municipal corporations of the State of Hawaii, can only do what we are allowed to do by the State, you know, by constitutional legislation statute. And we cannot intrude upon what the State has already decided that gets reserved for them. So, I'm going to read, "The powers of the County are embodied in Chapter 46 of Hawaii Revised Statutes." But the one that we're looking at, really, is 46-1.5 (13). And tell me if you guys, anybody here, if you guys can make heads or tails out of what this thing means. That's why I'm saying it was poorly drafted. Everything all the way down is just poorly drafted. Okay, "Each county shall have the power to enact ordinances deemed necessary to protect health, life, and property and to preserve the order and security of the county and its inhabitants"—clear enough, right?—"on any subject or matter not inconsistent with or tending to defeat the intent of any state statute"that's kind of clear, too, but this is the kicker—"where the statute does not disclose any express or implied intent that the statute shall be exclusive or uniform throughout Page 43 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 the state." What the hell does that mean? It could mean anything. But again, there is a general law that states we cannot intrude on what the State has decided they're going to reserve for themselves. So, now, we go to Chapter 107 and that's the building code section. Now, in 2014, I think, the Legislature amended this, and they defined "codes" and "standards" here, meaning "nationally recognized minimum requirements that shall be met for design and construction for safeguard, life,property, and general welfare." That's why the action really should be done at the County Building Code Council level, and I think we've neglected to get involved. I mean, we have a representatives there. Each of the counties have their building officials there but they're not policy-makers. They're administrators. They're technicians. We need to talk to the Legislature to take a closer look at this matter because it cannot go on like this. Minimum standards keep on going up. As we stated, most of the homes on our island don't adhere to these standards. So, it's only those that are coming online now. And if I could go even further, I understand that I won't put anybody on the spot here, but-50 percent of the residential properties that have been approved by the County since the current Building Code, what, 2006, was in effect, only 50 percent—and I'm going to use sheathing as an example—allowed for sheathing. And the 2006 Building Code requires sheathing. So, what's up with that? It doesn't make sense, right. But that was our way of trying to adjust for the needs of our community but, technically speaking,was not correct, okay. So, now, I'm going to go to another section. Give me latitude here, Madam Chairman. CHR. DAVID: Yes, no objections from anyone. Thank you. MR. CHUNG: This is how screwed up this thing is. 107-28, now look at this. This is beautiful. County authority to amend and adopt the Hawaii State building codes without Building Code Council approval. The governing body of each County shall three things—amend, adopt, and update Hawaii State building codes as they apply within their respective jurisdictions, blah, blah, blah. And then, later, they say each County shall amend and adopt—two things the Hawaii State building codes for their respective council no later than two years after adoption of the Hawaii State building codes. And then, in Subsection (b), it says if a county does not amend—only one thing,now. So, it started from "amend, adopt, and update," and then it came to "amend and adopt," and then it changed to only "amend." So, what the hell does that mean? Poorly drafted, no clear direction. But this is why I didn't want to advance an amendment. It's too risky. It really is risky. If we fool around with this thing too long—so basically, it's all pro forma. I hate to say it. We don't like it. But it Page 44 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 comes to us in a form from the building code commission, and we either adopt, amend upwards, or let it default back to some other thing that's in effect. This is a screwed-up situation. I don't like it. If I thought there was a way around it, I would have brought up my amendment for the roof sheathing. But it's just too risky. And so, I'm going to be voting in favor of this thing today. I hate it. I think we need to take a more active role in seeing how this thing is done, whether it's by changing State legislation so that we can put different people on that commission, or just getting more active when these codes are adopted by that commission. I don't like it. I really don't like this thing but that's all I've got to say. It's really bad. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chung, for bringing up the Hawaii State statutes there. I just want to touch on one that I think is right in the middle of all that. It's been said, potentially, that by State statute, the SBCC (State Building Code Council) in Section 107-24 from the HRS is charged with the duty to establish our Hawaii State building codes—and that's true. But State statute Section 107-26, HRS,provides limits to this authority. For instance, 107-26, HRS, states in adopting Hawaii State building codes, the council—SBCC council—shall not adopt provisions that relate to administrative, permitting, or enforcement and inspection procedures of each county. So, going forward with one of the reasons—and I appreciate your reasons for not embracing taking on an amendment. One of the things that gave me the courage to do so is that, therefore, the SBCC has no authority over, in the instances of my particular—in Bill 44—factory-built housing provisions adopted in Bill 179 or any of my proposed provisions related to factory-built housing in Bill 44, since Bill 179 and Bill 44 amendments pertain to County administrative permitting and inspection procedures. It's my understanding that the—and I'm not sure if it's even worth talking about the permitted interaction group because that's now been dissolved. So, I just wanted to point out, and I guess I would ask you, Dalilah, then, how 107-26 ties in to your understanding of the County's responsibility and kuleana to create the provisions for what's related to our County. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, when reviewing 107-26, I think we're in agreement that the intent here is that the counties are responsible for how they administer,permit, enforce, and inspect with respect to these building codes. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, yes. MS. SCHLUETER: Okay, thank you. Page 45 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: I yield for now. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: If I may. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead first and then I'll go to Mr. Chung. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, because I just want to keep that in context, just around 107-26, right. It gives us the authority to permit and inspect. However, we still cannot go below the floor even in that inspection process, right. We cannot administer, permit below the floor. Is that an accurate statement? MS. SCHLUETER: I agree with that statement. MS. LEE LOY: So, even if we give ourselves the authority to issue a permit, how to go about an inspection, we still cannot inspect or permit below the floor. MS. SCHLUETER: And essentially, we cannot provide ourselves administrative rules that would contradict or contravene, you know, defeat the purpose of the Code. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Chair, thank you for allowing me to keep that in context. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Kimball, you haven't had a chance yet. Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, actually, I just wanted to jump in right at this moment to ask for clarification around this terminology: "below the floor," "cannot defeat." What is the measurement of that? I mean, obviously, with the sheathing, like if it's that somewhat obvious, but then there are other provisions that are less clear that it would be a change in public health and safety. So, what is the measure of that? Is that something that goes through a legal proceeding to be determined? Can you expand on how that measurement will take place? MS. SCHLUETER: I apologize if I'm jumping around on terms as well. So, the standard that I'm stating is the State Building Code. So, that's our standard. That's our minimum standard. So, when we're referring to a floor or a minimum or a standard—and I apologize if I skip over that a little bit—I'm referring to the State Building Code. That's our minimum standard code that we are starting with. MS. KIMBALL: Understood. But if we are providing an amendment that qualitatively is different from the standard, what is the mechanism by which it's determined to be less restrictive or more restrictive than the standard? For Page 46 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 example, if we were to propose an amendment that provides an alternative to a standard set by the Building Code that does not have any impact on human health and safety, would that be considered doable or in the case you get what I'm asking now. Can you elaborate on that,please? Thanks. MS. SCHLUETER: I understand what you're asking, and I think it's challenging to put a big yes or a big no there and exactly what the measurement is. So, what I'm understanding with dealing with these building codesso, if the amendment were to be posed to change something structurally or give an alternativeso, say x, y, and z has to happen structurally, if we were to make an amendment to say, "or the alternative is a, b, c" I think it would take the actual professionals to say are these in equal building standard—and that's outside of my knowledge. Basically, I would say yes or no. So, I think that would take our professionals to be able to determine if those would be an equal alternative in respect to safety and health. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, so, there's no established mechanism, if you will, for that sort of comparison. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct and I think that goes a little bit to what Mr. Chung was saying. Some of these statutes are poorly written because it leaves—some of the discussion that Mr. Chung said, it doesn't give us that mechanism by who would be the judge of this, aside from, essentially, a legal challenge essentially in a court of law, who would be the judge of this determination. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for that. I'm going to yield for now, and I want to hear more from Mr. Chung's analysis. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I'm going to talk about what was brought up by Ms. Villegas and touched upon by Ms. Lee Loy and Dalilah as well, 107-26, Hawaii State building codes prohibition. I disagree with all of you guys, and I'll give you my interpretation of this thing. And I'll tell you why this, I mean, I think I disagree with all of you guys. I'm not real sure. This thing was brought up by carpenters' representative as well as PRP (Pacific Resource Partnership). As best as I could tell, it stood for the proposition based on their understanding, or they were using it, anyway, as a way to say, "In the areas relating to administrative, permitting, and enforcement and inspection, the counties are not preempted from doing things in the Building Code." Incorrect 100 percent! It says the word here is shall not adopt provisions that relate to these matters in these codes. Page 47 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 When we go about amending or adopting, we can't change things that relate to these matters. Granted, there are other places that they can be put in, but not when we're dealing with the codes. So, whoever is using this as a way of saying it's not preempted, these areas are not preempted, is misplaced their reliance. Absolutely wrong because it states shall not in the process of adopting these codes. I looked at that, too, many times. I had to look at it over and over. It kind of ruined by San Francisco trip too. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? Seeing none, Ms. Villegas, now no one else has any questions. MS. VILLEGAS: So, my quick question here, then, to Dalilah is in HRS 107-26. When it does state—who are they relating to as the council? Is that the SBCC or the County Council? MS. SCHLUETER: Excuse me, SBCC. MS. VILLEGAS: So, it says the SBCC shall not adopt provisions. Like the SBCC shall not adopt provisions, and I'm just trying to clarify, Mr. Chung, because those responsibilities reside within the County. MS. SCHLUETER: That's my understanding of this provision. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, great. So, the SBC can't tell us what—SBCC— basically, hat SBCCbasically, I'm going to go layman because I'mI apologize but I'm not a lawyer—can't tell the County what to do when it comes to administrative, permitting, or enforcement and inspection procedures of each county. They don't have the authority to do that. That's up to the County to decide for ourselves. MS. SCHLUETER: That's my understanding because it states that the State Building Code Council shall not adopt provisions that relate to these items of each county. MS. VILLEGAS: Great, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thanks. And, again, as I stated, there are other places where these things can be put—administrative,permitting, and all these other things but not in 5A, 513, or 5-whatever we're looking at, yeah. It's not part and parcel of this process, the Building Code process. It's someplace else. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Richards, go ahead. Page 48 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RICHARDS: I'm listening very carefully to all of this. I think probably Mr. Chung has nailed it on the head. I'd like to call for the question. Motion to Call for Mr. Richards moved to call for the question. Seconded by the Question: Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, a question was called. Roll call, please. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the question? MR. HENRICKS: Did you recognize the second? CHR. DAVID: The call for the question was made by Mr. Richards, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. Call for the question to Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: To vote on Bill 44 because we have no amendments before us. We were talking about the bill and discussion. So, call for the question on the bill. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, the call for the question. Is that debatable or not? MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, I'm just double-checking. It's not. So, the motion is before you as you recognized it. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. Roll call,please. Point of Personal MS. VILLEGAS: Point of personal privilege for a question. Privilege: CHR. DAVID: Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: What happens to the amendments that we brought forward? MR. HENRICKS: They're still in existence. I mean, they're communications so they're still tangible and there. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I apologize. This is my mistake that I would like to (inaudible). MR. HENRICKS: No, no, I understand your question, but if this motion is successful, then the Chair will call for the vote on Bill 44 at first reading, which would mean that the amendments will not be available today. CHR. DAVID: Let me clarify, if I may. If the vote on the call for the question is successful, then the amendments will not be happening today is what he's saying. But if it fails, then we can move forward with the amendments. Page 49 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. HENRICKS: If the motion that's on the floor fails, then you're just back to discussion on the main motion, which is to pass Bill 44 on first reading. CHR. DAVID: Yes. That's my understanding. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, well, my apologies but in my confusion on the procedure here, I didn't realize that I needed to bring forward that amendment in order to bring it into the conversation here. I thought that was where we were headed to next. So, I would just CHR. DAVID: We're going to take a vote on the call for the question right now. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I've asked my colleagues. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Vote on Motion to The motion to call for the question failed by the following Call for the roll call vote: Question: Failed Ayes: Council Members Lee Loy and Richards —2. Noes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Back to the discussion. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, guide me through here. There's been enough mud in the minds today to make sure that I say this correctly. Motion to move Communication No.no? CHR. DAVID: Motion to amend. MS. VILLEGAS: Motion to amend Bill 44 with the contents of Communication No. 281.17. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 44 with the contents of Comm. 281.17. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. DAVID: All those in favor? Oh, I'm sorry. You guys are confusing me. Okay, discussion, Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Every attempt was made to keep these amendments as clear and concise as possible while operating within the parameters of authority provided to our County based on Hawaii statute 107-26. There are some very Page 50 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 simple changes that have been made applying to changes of terminology. One of them is the removal of the use of the word "manufacturer's seal" in Appendix U, and that's because the proper term is "manufacturer's label." And it's not required for plan pre-approval. The label is to be affixed to the structure, not a part of the pre-approval process. There's also an amendment to Section 5B-1-6 in definitions, which applies to a couple of different sections. But essentially, it's clarifying language to ensure that—and these definitions, this specific structure is not meant to be permanent, office or home. My apologies, I need a drink of water. There's also an amendment in here that adds in that"in case of any conflict between this code and administrative rules, this code shall be considered the controlling regulation. Further, administrative rules may not be used to make any substantive changes to this code or the processes and procedures detailed in these chapters." What this does is closes any loopholes by clarifying that administrative rules don't have the power to supersede ordinances that have gone through the legislative process. And also, we want to make sure that the homes are being—in the case of a factory-built house that it's being inspected two times, essentially, for the highest health and safety of the people. So, with that, because I feel like my voice is going, I just want to open it up for comment from my colleagues. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Go ahead. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for the amendment. I think we had a robust discussion about keeping a baseline, but I actually want to turn it over to the Director about what these amendments do. I specifically have challenges around the definition. We're actually making up definitions whereby defeating. We're not even meeting the minimum standard of the family of codes that's been adopted by the State Building Code Council. I understand our administrative authority to inspect, provide fees around our building processes. But even that, I understand that we have plumbers who are trained and licensed. They won't inspect below the standard. But, Director Rodenhurst, why don't you go ahead and tackle this amendment. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, mahalo for that. Mahalo for the amendments that are being put forth. My concern being, as Council Member Lee Loy brought up, it conflicts with the definitions provided by the family of codes. And we can have Neal Tanaka, our representative of the State Building Code Council, go further into that but that's my first understanding. I'm trying to understand how these three definitions will fit in with the established definitions of these families of code, as well as we currently have an administrative code and that's separate from this bill here. So, I'm not sure how this applies to the Residential Code that we're talking about here. So, if there's more clarification you can provide or talk to or you can bring up how we have definitions through the family of codes. Page 51 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Can you be specific about which definition you're speaking about? Which amendment? MR. RODENHURST: The definition that you put forward here while we're redefining "manufacturer's seal," as you just put forth. And talking about how it—we talked about the amended definition for building, including, as you put here, "under no circumstance may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature." Let's see. Specifically, Items 2, 3, 4 MS. VILLEGAS: So, specific to factory-built housing. MR. RODENHURST: Specific to the definition of"building"that is being amended in here. MS. VILLEGAS: So, are you talking about Section 5-4-21 or ? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so, we have the definition under 5-4-21 as well as the definition under No. 2, Section 1, Bill No. 44, that amends Section 5B-1-6 on page 3 of the bill, definition of"building"would be amended as follows. This is actually Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, including the one for"tiny houses." MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, in one, it's correcting. It's more of a technical correction, and it's being recommended because there is no term "manufacturer's seal" in Appendix U. The proper term is "manufacturer's label." So, that's different than the amendment which falls under No. 2, which relates to "definitions" and includes into the definitions that"under no circumstance may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature." And that gets added into Section 513-1-6, Section R202, Section 5C-1-6, and Section 5C-2-1. And the clarifying language was added to ensure that these are not meant to be permanent offices or homes. I don't see how that would be in conflict to (Note: At this time, Public Works Acting Deputy Building Chief Neal Tanaka came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. TANAKA: Good morning, Council Members. Neal Tanaka, County of Hawaii Acting Deputy Building Chief. Respectfully MS. KIMBALL: Excuse me, Mr. Tanaka, could you take off your mask so we can hear you? MR. TANAKA: You know, I prefer to leave it on, if that's okay. I'll just speak a little bit louder. Is that better? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Page 52 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. TANAKA: Okay. With regard to these amendments, we don't endorse these at all because it's not clear what your intent is with regards to moving these forward. So, I would appreciate you to help me understand and the department what you're trying to achieve. Because, creating definitions of buildings on wheels to not become permanent becomes a problematic enforcement definition for homes that are not permittable then. And we're going to have people who live in tiny homes, of which we have enforcement and Building Code provisions for so that they can comply, so they can be permanent. But what you're doing with this definition is now not allowing them to be compliant. MS. VILLEGAS: I believe what I'm doing is creating clarification around 24-hour requirements for structures on wheels. MR. TANAKA: Such as tiny homes on wheels. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MR. TANAKA: Such as tiny homes on wheels. MS. VILLEGAS: Potentially, tiny homes on wheels, yeah. MR. TANAKA: Just tell me what you are trying to do. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm just going to have to step back. MR. TANAKA: What are you trying to do? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm trying to create a broader definition so that these are not a part of a pre-approval, to ensure that buildings on wheels are not permanent and are not a part of a pre-approval process in a permitting situation. And just for preference, the pressure and the push and the MR. TANAKA: This is your amendment. MS. VILLEGAS: I know, but in frame of reference, your push based on self- imposedI guess I don't appreciate the push for me to have to clarify. I would like for you to exemplify why it can't be in there. I'm asking for the amendment. I've stated that I have the authority, based on this role in this position, to request the amendment and to work with legal minds that work in this industry, and if that's not outside of a reasonable scope. MR. RODENHURST: If I may put in here, this change of definition conflicts with the different scopes as brought up with tiny homes. MS. VILLEGAS: You mean factory-built housing? Page 53 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: It causes confusion for houses mounted on wheels, and that's a broad definition here. And it's outside what's already established in the Code. And that's my question here, is where are we going with this? And that's similar to what Deputy Building Chief Neal Tanaka is bringing forward, is it's very broad and it causes some confusion as far as how this would be able to be enforced. MS. VILLEGAS: I don't understand how it conflicts. And I think that diverting to enforcement versus on permitting based on the structure of this piece of legislation, I don't see that conflict. Do you have it written somewhere else? I haven't seen it, that says that homes on wheels MR. TANAKA: The 2018 IRC has an Appendix Q for tiny homes. We made an amendment to that, saying that tiny homes on wheels must be permanent. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, which year? MR. TANAKA: The 2018—Bill 44 MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. MR. TANAKA: IRC 2018 has amendments for tiny homes. Bill 179, the IBC 2006, we brought in the amendment for tiny homes that required those homes to be permanent in nature when they're brought in. So, when you're bringing an amendment for Bill 44, it directly conflicts with those provisions for those homes to be permanent. MS. VILLEGAS: Is the definition of a tiny home that it is on wheels? MR. TANAKA: Tiny houses can be on wheels, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. TANAKA: So, what you're saying is, in no circumstance can a structure on wheels become permanent. MS. VILLEGAS: So, there's a 24-hour—does the 24-hour also apply to tiny homes already? Is it in the Code? What's the difference and—so then, this wouldn't apply to tiny homes. So, can they be affixed to the site? MR. TANAKA: Factory-built homes can be affixed to the site. But you're saying that anything on wheels can't be affixed to the site as permanent. Tiny homes, factory-built homes, HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) homes—federally-regulated HUD homes—manufactured homes on wheels you're saying cannot be permitted with this definition. Page 54 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Well, from a practicality standpoint, why would you want them on wheels if you're making them permanent? MR. TANAKA: That's a HUD Federal standard. MS. VILLEGAS: Having them on wheels? MR. TANAKA: It's part of their Code. Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Interesting. Okay, well, not something that I'm particularly aware of MR. TANAKA: It's your amendment. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry? MR. TANAKA: It's your amendment. MS. VILLEGAS: I know it's my amendment, but I don't know every part of HUD rules or other areas. So, amendments are a best effort at improving on a bill that's been brought to us under forced, rushed circumstances and questionable intentions. If you'd like to go the next amendment— Point mendmentPoint of Information: MS. KIMBALL: Madam Chair, point of information. CHR. DAVID: What's your point? MS. KIMBALL: I just want to be clear. Is this whole communication the amendment? There are not multiple amendments? Okay. CHR. DAVID: The communication is submitting amendments to the entire Bill 44 in certain areas. MS. KIMBALL: Right. So, would we vote on the motion as a whole? An affirmative vote would mean we support all of the items within the communication. CHR. DAVID: Whatever's contained in here, unless Ms. Villegas chooses to amend it, yeah. MS. KIMBALL: It's just that she just said going on to the next amendment, but there's only amendment. CHR. DAVID: Yes. Page 55 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. KIMBALL: So,just different(inaudible). Okay, thank you for the clarification. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. You know what, we'll take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Recess: At 12:39 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:48 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. Continue. Point of MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. I feel much better. Hard to think straight Clarification: when you haven't used the restroom for too many hours. Okay, for a point of clarification, a lot of the concern behind here relates to people's concerns about trailer parks. That's not where we want to head. We do want tiny homes. We don't necessarily want trailer parks is what I've been told by a number of constituents and people. Now, my question then comes, Mr. Tanaka, because already existing in the general definition of"building," it states, "any structure used or intended for supporting any use or occupancy, the term shall include but not be limited to any structure mounted on wheels such as a trailer, wagon, or vehicle, which is parked and stationary for any 24-hour period and is used for business or living purposes provided, however, that under no circumstances may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature. And the term shall not include a pushcart or push wagon, which is readily movable and which does not exceed 25 square feet in area, nor shall the term include a trailer or vehicle used exclusively for the purpose of selling any commercial product therefrom, which hold a vehicle license and actually travels on public or private streets." So, from your standpoint and concern of this is MR. TANAKA: My concern is that houses on wheels, whether it's a tiny home, a HUD home, a factory-built home, to permit that it needs to meet the provisions of the Code for MS. VILLEGAS: The Federal law presides over HUD homes, so we don't have any jurisdiction over that because it's Federal. Correct? MR. TANAKA: But it's a building on wheels, right? MS. VILLEGAS: But wouldn't a Federal regulation supersede the County's if it's a building on wheels? Page 56 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. TANAKA: I'm going to defer to Corp. (Corporation) Counsel on that regard. But I think when it comes to Federal, State, and County levels, the jurisdiction that holds would probably apply. But it's all in the definitions as well, right. So, we have provisions on homes needing to be permitted, right, to meet these safety guidelines that we've been talking about for these past couple of months. So, now, we have a definition that is saying that a home cannot be permanent if it's on wheels. And so, now, it's not permittable and we can't enforce our safety standards on these homes. MS. VILLEGAS: I guess the statement that a home can't be permanent if it's on wheels, the fact that a home is on wheels implies that it's not permanent. MR. TANAKA: But we have provisions in our Code that say those homes on wheels have to be permanent—connected to a permanent foundation. MS. VILLEGAS: That doesn't make sense to me. MR. RODENHURST: So, if I may explain. A home that is on wheels, whether it be factory-built, HUD, tiny home, or it may be a structure mounted on wheels, it can become permanent if it is attached to a foundation. There are provisions in the Code that show how that can be done, and that is how it can be inspected and permitted. This provision that you're putting forward in this amendment conflicts that and does not allow us to allow what is allowed in the Code. That's where I'm saying this change of definition changes the ability of this Code to function in my review of this. MS. VILLEGAS: Can you point to the specific part in the Code that conflicts with it? MR. TANAKA: Our amendment for tiny homes is in Appendix Q. All homes need to be on a permanent foundation per the IRC to meet the seismic, wind provisions of the Code. So, it's all written in the IRC already when it comes to foundations. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, once again, I'm still confused on how that—so, in the start of this, your question to me was what am I trying to accomplish and why in bringing this forward. And I guess my question to you is, so, trailer homes ? MR. RODENHURST: I think one of the things I want to put forward is I think we all here want to do what's best for the community and help with this situation we have with housing and affordable housing that's available, which means that we're all looking for creative solutions. I mean, we wouldn't have spent as much time as we have today if we weren't all looking for creative solutions. This seems to limit us on those creative solutions that are put forth by this Code that allow for tiny homes, factory-built homes, alternative methods of construction that are put forth in this recognized code across the nation. That's where I'm coming from on Page 57 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 this. As far as trailer homes, can you define and expand that as far as what the concerns or what the specifics of a trailer home that you're worried about on this? MS. VILLEGAS: I think, overall,people have concerns about trailer homes and whether or not they're founded. There's socioeconomic. I,personally, wouldn't necessarily want to see the island—we have enough issues with our visitors but I would see it being used as more of like transient housing. I am a full proponent of tiny homes and, with provisions applied, factory-built homes. However, I don't think it's necessary. And if at some point in the future once again we decide we need to amend this to take that out because we are headed in that direction, tiny homes can be shipped and delivered and taken off the wheels and put permanently affixed. MR. RODENHURST: What do you define as a trailer home? MS. VILLEGAS: Well, there's a lot of different— MR. ifferentMR. RODENHURST: Because right now, we're talking about"structure mounted on wheels." That's not just trailer homes, and that's what I'm saying here. It's a broad definition. So, my question, is there multiple definitions you can expand on on a trailer home? MS. VILLEGAS: Oh. Trailer homes can be, my goodness, a trailer with a structure built on it towed behind a truck. A trailer home can be a large RV (recreational vehicle). I mean, there are some very deluxe and beautiful RVs. I've traveled in a coupe and they're gorgeous. But predominantly, they're for those that are constantly in movement,per say, where a tiny home is most prevalently thought of as going to live right on site. I had the opportunity build some tiny homes. How do you define a tiny home or a trailer home? MR. RODENHURST: We have a definition for trailer home under the Code. MS. VILLEGAS: And in the interest of time and the willingness to work on this specific and, once again, this part of this overall amendment, I'm happy to move on from this one and then return to it or amend the amendment—however needs to happen—because I know if or when Bill 44 moves forward, we have time before the next meeting to work on this. Okay? But in the interest of Mr. Tanaka, would you like to answer the question if there is a definition for a trailer home? MR. TANAKA: As you mentioned, in the interest of time, we'll get back to you on that specifically out of this Code. MS. VILLEGAS: If there's a definition of"trailer home"? MR. TANAKA: Yes. Page 58 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. And, Chair, if you'd like for me to stop and open the floor to other people and then we can get to the other topics, we could do that. CHR. DAVID: Okay. If you yield right now, I'll go to the other Council Members. MS. VILLEGAS: I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas, on the first page of the communication in reference to the manufacturer's seal, you say that it's called "label" in some other appendix. What was the reason to strike the whole section instead of just replacing "seal"with "label"? MS. VILLEGAS: Because, the manufacturer's label is not required for plan pre- approval. The label is to be affixed to the structure and not part of the pre- approval process. So, when permitting, you wouldn't have that label, right. MR. INABA: So, without Section 2, which is crossed out here, is there somewhere else that requires a label to be placed onto the structure when it is completed? MS. VILLEGAS: I believe that that falls into the finalI would actually defer to Mr. Tanaka on that. MR. INABA: Mr. Tanaka, if you could, please? MR. TANAKA: Council Member Holeka, could you please re-ask the question? MR. INABA: We're on the first page, so that Section 2 that's been struck in regards to the manufacturer's seal, Council Member Villegas is saying that it's actually "manufacturer's label." So, with this section being struck, is there somewhere else in the Code that would prescribe when this label would be affixed to the structure? MR. TANAKA: Appendix U of Bill 44, Section U101.8, talks about the manufacturer's label. MR. INABA: Okay. Does it just describe it or does it actually say when it should be placed? MR. TANAKA: "Each and every factory-built housing manufactured in the County of Hawaii" I'm sorry, that's Part(b), specific to the County of Hawaii—"shall have a manufacturer's label on a metal plate showing the Page 59 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 manufacturer's name, serial number of the building, manufactured date, design load criteria, and building official inspection stamp securely fastened on the factory-built housing." MR. INABA: So,just when it's completed then? Is that—it just doesn't seem clear being that there was a change happening here. MR. TANAKA: Yes. MR. INABA: Okay. MR. TANAKA: The seal or the label needs to be approved by us, right. So, if it's a factory-built home, it's presented to us and we review the information on that label prior to being affixed to the unit. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Going back, Council Member Villegas, on page 2, the whole discussion we've had regarding definitions, with this addition that you've done here, is it to say that a structure mounted on wheelsoh, it says, "under no circumstance may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature. Are we saying that while it's on wheels or if it's ever on wheels and we get it somewhere that it cannot become permanent? MS. VILLEGAS: No, we're sayingI mean, most things are going to need to travel on wheels to get to places, especially with factory-built housing, with tiny homes. And that's what it's meant to say. But it wouldn't stay upon wheels and become that permanent structure while still on wheels. MR. INABA: It cannot become a permanent structure, right? Okay. So, currently MS. VILLEGAS: But that not be part of the definition of a building, right? This is under the definition of a building. And under the definition of a building, it wouldn't be permanently on wheels. MR. INABA: Okay, hang on. So, Mr. Tanaka, when it comes to this, currently structures on—or Director Rodenhurst, whoever wants to answera structure that is on wheels, let's say a tiny home that's on wheels, how long does it have to be on wheels and stay in one place? MR. TANAKA: That provision of the Code lies within the Planning Department. MR. INABA: Okay. And then, when can it become permanent? MR. RODENHURST: Our Building Code requires all buildings to be permanent. MR. INABA: And "permanent" means? Page 60 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: For the case of this (inaudible) fixed through a permanent foundation. MR. INABA: Okay. And currently, our Code says that even if it's on wheels, if it is affixed to the ground, it's permanent? You take a trailer with a tiny home on it and youI don't know. I'm not that kind of worker. I don't know the terms but you cement them to the ground, is that permanent? MR. TANAKA: That would be permanent? It's a permanent foundation. MR. INABA: Okay. And with this amendment here, as long as a unit is sitting on wheels, regardless of if those wheels are affixed to the ground somehow or not, that structure is not considered permanent. Is that correct? Sorry, I can ask it easier. That was difficult. If the structure is on the trailer and the trailer is bolted to the ground, with this amendment will it be considered permanent? MR. TANAKA: The way I read that amendment—well, let me take a step back. I know you're talking in generalities and bolting to the ground won't meet the Code, but assuming MR. INABA: Okay, yeah, so however, whatever it takes to make it affixed MR. RODENHURST: Affixed to a foundation, thank you. MR. INABA: Okay. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, to make that clear, but the way I read that proposed language, it would not be allowed to be permanent, under no circumstance. MR. INABA: Okay. Council Member Villegas, is this the intention of the amendment, is so that if something gets taken to a location and they do whatever to affix the moving part to the ground, it's still not considered permanent? MS. VILLEGAS: That would become a logistical question because why would you leave it on wheels if you were going to affix it permanently to the ground, as this relates to the definition of a building? MR. INABA: I understand what you're saying. If it's supposed to be permanent, then take it off the wheels and make it permanent, right. But this is what we're working—getting technical here now. So, if we are, then is that—? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? MR. INABA: If we take a tiny home on a trailer,put it somewhere, and they affix the trailer to the ground, is it the intention that that structure is not ever going to be considered permanent? Because that's how this thing is reading right now. As Page 61 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 long as it's on the wheels, it can't be considered permanent. And I know there's opportunity for more of this to get worked out, but I'm just trying to understand for myself if that's what the intention—well, that's kind of how I'm understanding it. So, I just want to know if that's how you understand it. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, the point of context here also to go forward is we're talking about trailers, wagons, vehicles, parked and stationary for any 24-hour period used for businesses or living purposes, not including a pushcart or push wagon, which is readily movable and which does not exceed. So, it's providing these broader parameters that create, I guess, yeah, a more structured requirement for a building. In order to be considered permanent in nature, it wouldn't be mounted on wheels, I mean. And my apologies; I'm not a lawyer and a lot of this certainly can go sideways and up and down. I'm not against tiny homes. I'm not against tiny homes on wheels. I just think that this creates some parameters that then define and furtherI mean, in my mind, it backs up these other vehicles that are being—and vehicle by pushcart, a push wagon, something that's readily movable. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Director Rodenhurst, when it comes to this permanency, I keep going back and forth that's the problem where I hear what you folks are saying and then I hear the logic that she's talking about. But somewhere it's not making sense to me, and is this not the case already? So, I mean, the big change here would be the trailer cannot be affixed to the ground and be considered permanent and, therefore, our building codes wouldn't be able to apply. Is that what's happening? MR. TANAKA: That's the way I read that Code and that provision. If that trailer cannot be permanent, we cannot enforce our codes, or those trailers would not be Code-compliant. MR. INABA: And we currently have areas or units that are on trailers that don't move anywhere, and they have people living in them? MR. TANAKA: Yes. MR. INABA: And those are permitted because—does it need to be permanent to be permitted? Sorry, last question, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MR. TANAKA: To be Code-compliant, it needs to be permitted. MR. INABA: Does it need to be permanent to be permitted? MR. TANAKA: Yes. Our Code requires a permanent foundation. Page 62 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. INABA: So, every unit that I just asked about that houses people that are still on wheels are affixed to the ground right now. MR. TANAKA: The ones that are permitted, yes. MR. INABA: I'm talking about, you know, especially the ones that we are having people live in. Those are all affixed to the ground. So then, they're permanent. So then, they have permits. Is that right? MR. TANAKA: That is correct. MR. RODENHURST: Yes, correct. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Actually, I have two questions and it's actually for Corporation Counsel. Because, we had a lot of discussion about the administrative intent. So, Corporation Counsel, Dalilah but I will have to say, as Dalilah comes up, I am getting text messages from Hawaiian Homes beneficiaries and they're flipping out. This idea of not allowing mobile homes or the ability to have this as an option for them strikes at the heart of affordability. They want options. And what some of this amendment does is take out that housing option for them. And I think I'm going to borrow something Mr. Richards always says, "This is not ready for primetime,"because I'm still waiting to hear Ms. Villegas articulate what the intentionality of this is. Dalilah, when you evaluate this amendment—and we had a robust discussion about the administrative authorities around what we can do administratively does this amendment conflict with the ability to enforce the Code? Because, these are administrative amendments, right. Help walk me through that part. MS. SCHLUETER: So, we're discussing 107-26, the administrative in nature versus constructive or—what's the word I'm looking for—versus constructive in nature. Obviously, we agree that the counties have the authority to administer the Code, permitting, enforcement, inspection, but the County doesn't have the authority to change the Code where it would go below what the Code has already set, right. So, that's the discussion—is this administrative in nature or is it constructive in nature? MS. LEE LOY: And so, these amendments actually chip away, right? They're being presented as administrative, but they begin to chip away at the baseline. MS. SCHLUETER: The technical parts I have to defer to the department because I don't have that scope of knowledge. Page 63 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: It's my understanding by the verbiage here it would prevent the permanent affixion of a structure mounted on wheels. I says right there, "Under no circumstance may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature." And that's why I'm saying it conflicts with what it has in the Code. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. We're all looking for affordable options, Council Member Villegas, and what we don't want to do is handcuff ourselves. I think there are tools within the Code if we provide a bright line of processes. I think that actually advances some of the opportunities, whether they be tiny homes, whether they be the HUD homes. I'm nervous about how this Code actually, again, would strike at an opportunity if we were to face an emergency that these HUD homes would not be available to us. I'm looking at Council Member Kierkiewicz. When we were trying to move people out of Puna, and I think it was Kea`au School, they moved in all of those construction trailers and then they mounted permanently to provide classroom spaces. And then, they actually turned around and started utilizing them as classrooms. And so, when I readjust the intentionality, and although you're articulating it differently, those words don't exist here. I think there's opportunities to work with the department, but I need to hear a clear articulation as to what we're after because I'm not going to support anything that takes housing options out of our tool kit. We need them all right now. Thank you, Dalilah. Thank you, Director. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, everyone, for the discussion. I just wanted to follow up on a question. Well, first of allI can understand from the aesthetic point of view the desire not to bring in mobile home parks. What is your assessment, as Department of Public Works, the allowability of that concept in Hawaii County right now under the Code? MR. RODENHURST: I believe that's where my question to define what a mobilea home is in this and looking through the Code. I'll have Tanaka talk about that, but that's my question, what defines a mobile home. And if it's something that we can allow per our Code, I'm for it. If it's something that's safe, something that we can get behind in this Code and it's allowed, I'm for it. If it's something not allowed in this Code, we can't permit that. And I will let Tanaka go more into detail on that. MR. TANAKA: So, as I previously mentioned, mobile homes/parks are defined and administered by the Planning Department. And so, that's not our kuleana. But what our kuleana is definitely to make sure that these houses are affixed with the proper life safety concerns. Part of that would be sanitation, right. So, we do Page 64 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 have infrastructure challenges; however, we welcome any kind of opportunity for housing, as Council Member Lee Loy says, based on Code-compliance. That's all we're really concerned about. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. I did ask for the Planning Department to join us so they could weigh in a little bit. Mobile homes, mobile dwellings sit under Article 4, Division 1, of Chapter 25 and there's a licensing of a mobile home park. I only had a moment—thank you, Deputy, for being hereI only had a moment to look at the Code and to get myself familiar. Can you expand a little bit more on how the Planning Department looks at mobile home parks? The licensing process, what's entailed in that? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing.) MR. DARROW: Sure. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and members of the Planning CommissionI'm sorry; I always say that—the County Council. Unfortunately,just to let you know, I believe you folks are experiencing some difficulty on Zoom. So, I can hear but it's very faint. So, if I miss something,please just let me know. And I also can't see you folks as well. But anyway, in the Zoning Code under Section 25-4-10, which is identified as "mobile dwellings," I'll just read this so that we're all clear on it. It says, "All mobile dwellings shall conform to the County construction code, including chapters 5 and 5A through 5F and the Public Health Housing Code (chapter 2 of the State public health regulations, except(1) when it's parked in a licensed mobile home park" currently, there are none on this islandand "(2) when occupied for dwelling or sleeping purposes outside of a licensed mobile home park for less than thirty days in any one location." So, that's the difficulty with these. The only place that they can be legally permitted is in a licensed mobile home park. There has been an attempt in the past to try to permit a mobile home park but it did not pass. This was through a special permit. And since then, I don't recall a request coming before the Planning Department, and this well over 20 years ago. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Deputy. Is there any reference to mobile home parks within the General Plan, any of the CDPs (Community Development Plans)? MR. DARROW: Not that I'm aware of. Page 65 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Okay. And the process in this case that happened years ago where someone sought to license a mobile home park, what is the procedure? You said that's a special permit. What part of the Code guides that process? I'm just asking for clarification. MR. DARROW: It's basically under State law, HRS Section 205-6, that allows for special permits, as well as in our Planning Commission Rule 6. It allows for uses that are not permitted in the State Land Use agricultural district but can be permitted through a special permit. We don't really have other options in our Code to where it states like a mobile home park is a permitted use within, like, a commercial district or an industrial zoning district. It just seems to be limited right now to the opportunity of trying to come in with a special permit in the State Land Use agricultural district. MS. KIMBALL: That isn't something that could be bypassed by the 201H process by any chance? MR. DARROW: I would believe that it probably could be requested as an exemption through that process, but it would have to be supported. And I would think that there would be some opposition to that. I don't know if our current Administration would be supportive of having that as part of a 201H exemption. There's been a lot of talk about tiny homes and the ability to have these mobile tiny homes. There's been several attempts, too, in the Legislature to try to permit these, but there are some other issues that come along with that as far as having multiple dwellings on one particular property. It's difficult. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Deputy Darrow. I believe that's all the questions I had related to this. I appreciate you taking the time out to join the conversation. Moving on to Section 6 of the proposed amendment, which mentions if there's a conflict between Code and administrative rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember in your previous testimony the Department of Public Works does not have its own administrative rules. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. We have the Administrative Code. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I'm going to ask my colleague Ms. Villegas what, for the intention here, and then just make the recommendation there are parts of this I support, others I want to spend a little more time on. I wonder if you'd be willing to withdraw it and resubmit it as individual elements. Talking with the Clerk, one way to do that would be to rephrase the amendment so it was proposed to amend Bill 44 with the contents of said communication, Section 1, Section 5, Section whatever. That way, we can deal with each one independently rather than having to pass everything. Just a suggestion. Page 66 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 But yeah, if you could describe your intent with that amendment in 6 just because I understand that—and if the Building Department—if DPW (Department of Public Works) has the ability to change the Code without going through the legislative process, I have a problem with that and I don't want you guys to have that. But I'm not clear that you do with this. Even actually, Corp. Counsel, if you could respond to that as well. I hope you're clear about what I'm asking. But I don't want DPW to do anything that's not in the Code without us having a chance to review it first. MS. VILLEGAS: I do want to clarify that, yes, you're right. The intention of this being put in here, while DPW does not currently have administrative rules written up, but the intention is that an administration wouldn't come in and have new leadership and then just write rules to supersede what's been passed legislatively. And that's the intention, is to make sure that doesn't happen. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. MS. SCHLUETER: Based on the statutes and law that we've discussed today and that I've reviewed, the department would not have the authority to create administrative rules that would allow them to alter the Code. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, they couldn't alter the Code, but if they wrote rules for themselves that allowed them to have practices different than the Code, that's the concern. MS. SCHLUETER: If it conflicted with the Code, it would be preempted, then, by the law. So, they couldn't write an administrative code to get around—excuse me, they couldn't write an administrative rule to get around the Code. They couldn't and run around the Code by making themselves a special rule to allow them to do so because that would be in violation. MS. VILLEGAS: Correct, and that's essentially what this amendment is stating. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I'll grab the floor back, then, while I still have you there. So, the scenario where—okay, let me ask this first. Is the fact that DPW doesn't have administrative rules, that's where we are right now and you haven't ever made them? Or are you actually prohibited from having administrative rules in DPW? MS. SCHLUETER: So, to clarify—and please jump in, Ikaika there isso, there's the Code that we're discussing, and there is a section of Administrative Code that is part of our Hawaii County Code, which would also still have to be to alter that, you'd still be going through the legislative process. If you're referring to, like, internal policies or internal rules, at this time the department does not have that. Page 67 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: We don't have any intention to make administrative rules. As far as Administrative Code, if we decide that we want to change the Administrative Code, we would go through the same process of providing that to the Council for review and discussion before that becomes law based upon your decision. MS. SCHLUETER: And if it would help, if there is likeI'm thinking of the Planning Commission rules. Those are published rules that are allowed by Charter. And I have to double-check where it would allow the Department of Public Works to do something like that. That's subject to Chapter 91 and wouldn't be something that could be arbitrarily changed by the Director. If something like that was proposed or put into place, it would be subject to Chapter 91 and public hearings. MS. KIMBALL: What about the scenario—and these exist in Bill 44—where there is decision-making subjective to the decision of the administrator of the department or the administration of the department one of those somewhat arbitrary but just as an example is the types of(inaudible) we've termite treated. Is that correct, Neal? Yeah. Termite treatments, okay. Just as an example. You have the Code dictating something that is now a decision by the Administration. In this particular example,probably none of us care if you guys make that decision, but there are other parts of the Code that are similar where it's not so much that the Administration would make a decision in violation of the Code but that the Code gives them the opportunity to interpret. Again, I'm just concerned about the breadth, the scope the department has to make some of these decisions without going through the legislative process. I know you're a bright guy, Ikaika. I know you have everybody's best intentions at heart, but we want to keep our reins a little bit. MS. SCHLUETER: I'm going to try and answer this. It seems a little theoretical. I'm trying to kind of stay in line. So, we're basically talking about a situation that would be like you're required x, y, and z, essentially, to the satisfaction or to a sufficiency determined by the department. Is that kind of ? MS. KIMBALL: That's kind of an example. Yeah, that's basically it. I mean, the other MS. SCHLUETER: It's kind of a challenge because if that's how the State well, here's the deal_ If that's how the State Code is written and we bring it down as a State Code, and it says this is it, we can make it tighter. The County can go above that standard. If the minimum standard is to the determination of the director, the County does have the authority to go above that and say, "No, we don't want it to be the determination of the director. That's not the final decision. Here's our standard." And we can enumerate what our standard actually is. It would be, essentially, above that standard, if I'm making sense. And I'm still Page 68 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 talking theoretical. So, there may be a specific example that could kind of change our opinion or analysis here. But so long as we're not dropping below. And I know it's kind of a hard analysis being theoretical with that one. MS. KIMBALL: I know. I'm sure Judge Strance is feeling your pain right now because I'm always asking her theoretical questions. And I know you attorneys hate that. But if I can have one more question? CHR. DAVID: Yeah, Ms. Kimball, I just want to make a note that we've been going a while. So, after you're done, I'm going to call a really quick lunch recess. Everybody's already commented. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. And definitely appreciate that. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. MS. KIMBALL: So, given Ms. Villegas's intent,which was not to allow DPW to make decisions through any sort of rule process or their own executive authority in perpetuity, not just with the current Administration, is Corporation Counsel comfortable saying that the Code, as it exists without this amendment,provides that protection? MS. SCHLUETER: I need to look more before I can be comfortable making an affirmative answer one way or another on that. I just haven't looked at enough to be sure what conflicts may exist and what authority the full Administrative Code—section of the Code gives. So, I'd like to look before giving that official answer. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. And I appreciate, this is very nuanced. I believe Judge Strance is probably going to yell at me again for coming up with hypotheticals but I'll take it. MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. At a prior meeting, we talked a little bit about kind of hierarchy of law. The Federal government cannot enact laws contrary to the Federal Constitution. State Constitution cannot be in violation of the Federal Constitution. State law cannot be in violation of the State Constitution. County law can't be in violation of State law. Agency administrative rules cannot be in violation of County ordinance. The purpose of administrative rules are to enact and to provide mechanisms for carrying out the laws, right. So, earlier today, we had a resolution about dolphins. That rule is in support of a Federal act. So, it has a Federal—in order for a rule to be created, there has to be a law for it to support. And so, an administrative rule that would be designed to be an end-around an ordinance that you create would be an improper rule. So, the whole level of bureaucracy in State and Federal government, even here at the Page 69 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 County, it's a hierarchy of authority. And so, the concern that I have about the language that you've suggested, representative Villegas, is that's already the law. And I think what Dalilah was trying to get to is if there's some specific provision within the Code that there is concern about the grant of authority, then that could maybe address separately so long as it's not in violation of the Building Code. But I think that there may be some misunderstanding of the authority that departments have. There has to be a law for the rule to be in support of. So, if there's something specific, I think that would help Dalilah in whatever she would need to look at. But just as a general statement, that's the hierarchy of law. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. So, right now, it's 1:37. We're going to take a half-hour break for lunch. I think we all need one. And we'll reconvene at 2:10. All right, Council Members, is that okay? A quick break. All right, we're in recess till 2:10. Thank you. Recess: At 1:36 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:15 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Aloha, everyone. Welcome back. I'm taking the Council meeting out of recess. It is now 2:15 in the afternoon. Where were we, guys? Okay, continuing with discussion, Council Members, on Bill 44. Ms. Villegas, go ahead on the amendment. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Judge Strance, oh, sorry. Actually, Dalilah. And I apologize; I'm calling you by your first name. If you'd prefer, I can call you by your last name, and then tell me, once again, if I should say "Ms." or "Mrs." Deputy Corporation Counsel, all right. Okay, in Section—No. 6 in the amendments, in what we were speaking about last, I'm taking inconsideration what Strance had just said. So, I'd like to put this forward because in Section 1 it says, "The following appendices of the International Residential Code are adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter, subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules or this chapter." So, in my mind, that's where the need to say, "In case of any conflict between this Code and administrative rules, the Code shall be considered the controlling regulation"because it's implied by "subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules." So, what you see as a potential solution, an amendment to this amendment, as we get to that, but striking the sentence "subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules or this chapter," and in which case we wouldn't need the pointing out of what Strance already kind of said is already the law. Page 70 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: Okay, I believe I'm tracking with you. I apologize if I'm not MS. VILLEGAS: No worries. MS. SCHLUETER: So, one thing I may want to double-check with Director is, so it's already referencing an administrative rule of this chapter, right? MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. It says right here, and I don't know if you have that in front of you. Here, I can loan you mine because—go ahead. MS. SCHLUETER: Sorry, I've got mine on my computer screen (inaudible). MS. VILLEGAS: No worries. It's on page 7, on the top under No. 1, and it's repeated under No. 2. MS. SCHLUETER: I just want to make sure I'm looking at the exact wording. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. MR. RODENHURST: Page 3, right? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, page 7 of the amendment. Under "(1) The following appendices of the International Residential Code"—do you see that? "are adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter, subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules or this chapter." So, that creates some confusion about what supersedes what. Hence, my belief that we needed to state what the law already is, which is that the Code trumps administrative rules. So, if we could strike out"subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules or this chapter,"then we could also eliminate my addition, which is the part about the conflict. MS. SCHLUETER: Just speaking a little bit freely, my concern with completely striking that out—"subject to any amendments set forth in the administrative rules or this chapter" I think that we need to look at the administrative rules and confirm MS. VILLEGAS: There aren't any administrative rules in DPW yet. MS. SCHLUETER: Well, there's an Administrative Code. So, there's another Code section that's not within Bill 44. And that's why when Council Member Kimball was asking me about, "So, can you say, yes, there's nothing within this that can be altered by the administrative rules,"that's what I was talking about wanting to take a look at to be able to make that a solid answer, like, "Yes, this is covered already." Sorry if I'm getting a little off track. So, taking a look at the administrative rule would make Page 71 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: And perhaps you could better define, for me, the difference between administrative rules. Because, to me, that means rules that apply to DPW, right, but then versus Administrative Code. MS. SCHLUETER: Right. So, yeah, we already have a Code. We don't have a separate administrative rule. And I apologize for going back and forth. I just want—what I'm concerned about before saying yes or no solidly is making sure that any appropriate rules regarding application versus administration, basically I want to look at the content a little bit more before I can answer that solidly. MS. VILLEGAS: That's totally fair. MS. SCHLUETER: I just don't want to lead you down the wrong way to strike anything or change it without being clear on my answer. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. This is clear as mud, and I know this is like one of your really first fun pieces of legislation. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. Yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Mine too. Would it be appropriate, then, to ask Mr. Tanaka MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: If he's comfortable with something like that? MR. TANAKA: Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief. Can you re-ask your question, please? MS. VILLEGAS: In the prior discussion with Judge Strance, she had mentioned, you know, we're talking about adding in the verbiage that states that if there's a conflict between this Code and administrative rules, the Code shall be considered the controlling regulation. And the administrative rules may not be used to make any substantive changes to this Code or the process and procedures detailed in these chapters. Now, it's my belief that that's necessary because in the prior sentence, it says, "The following appendices of the International Residential Code are adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter, subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules or this chapter." So, if we struck that out because it creates confusion about what supersedes what, then we could also eliminate the need for the addition of the prior statements, or the following statements. MR. TANAKA: I'm going to defer with Corp. Counsel. We'll take a look at that, and I think it's appropriate. Page 72 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and pass it off to my colleagues for any other comments on this piece. Inspections is another very important part of this amendment, but I also want to say that I'm very open to the opportunity of essentially dissecting and taking the parts, which is a lot of amendments, or a lot of changes wrapped into one amendment. And I hear from my colleagues that there's some concern about some of the parts of it. And so, in an interest of prioritizing the most important—clarifying the questions around them and separating them in order to have the potential of moving the parts that we agree on forward. I just wanted to state that for the record. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is my first time to talk. Thank you for letting us have lunch; that was very needed. Thank you for being here today. I did want to mention—and I didn't do this; that's why I asked you, Mr. Rodenhurst we did get an emailI'm assuming all of us got an email saying that all amendments to the Code needed to go through DPW so they can be addressed between us and the department. MR. RODENHURST: There was a request to each Council Member that if there were any amendments or proposed amendments or clarifications, to please give me a list, and we can schedule a time to meet. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I appreciate that. That's usually the norm but it's also within our realm to do what we want to do and proceed. And I just wanted to state why I may not have done that in this case. Today's discussion is interesting. I had to think about it over lunch, basically what we're saying. And we're really sticking to this although there's some really important parts of this amendment that we barely touched on, including inspections and some different parts of the amendment put forth by Ms. Villegas. I mean, this permanent structure is going to raise some questions, in my eyes, but just a couple. So, I boiled down the statement and this definition to say, `Buildings for occupancy shall include trailers, wagons, and vehicles. However, no such structure on wheels may become permanent." If you just boil it down to the bare bones, that's about what you get. What is the concern with that statement from DPW's eyes? I'm not quite understanding your concern. This is trailers, wagons, and vehicles becoming permanent. Jeff Darrow just told us we have no RV parks on-island. Vehicles shouldn't be turning into occupied buildings. Trailers have to have a vehicle license for the most part, or some kind of license if they're all bigger than 6 feet long. So, what is the fear of this wording? I just wanted to ask you guys what is your reason not to let this go forward? MR. RODENHURST: I would ask the question,what is the fear of structures being permanently affixed that have wheels? Page 73 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't know but my question still stands. Why do you not like this language? MR. RODENHURST: Because we're limiting the ability for structures that have wheels to be permanently affixed, which is applicable to this Code and allowed under this Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so, good. So, what trailers, wagons, or vehicles for occupancy exist right now on-island that need to become permanent tomorrow? Or have already gone through the permitting process and are permanent? Give me some examples so I can understand the rationale for saying no to this because in the future it could limit us. Well, what exists right now that this is going to remove as an option for us, under whatever guise you want to throw it under? MR. RODENHURST: We would remove a tiny home that has wheels that could be permanently affixed to a property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Do we have any yet? MR. RODENHURST: I would have to ask Deputy Chief. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. Where are they? MR. TANAKA: That is a hard question to answer right now without my records with regards to permits but we have them. MR. RODENHURST: Of all the permits we have, I don't have one in front of me where I can identify, "This is the one." MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. RODENHURST: But I have in this Code a method of which this can be done and this amendment conflicts that. That's my question. My question is, why was that written into this? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Whatever her reasoning was, it's up to the Council Member. My question is, what is that here that's saying, "Hey, no, we cannot put this in because it's going to limit our possibilities in the future"? But what I'm listening to is, "Maybe some tiny houses, but right now I couldn't tell you any exact permits that that may be. And we have some but I don't really know where they are." Obviously, this is not a staggering number of permits floating out there for these trailers, wagons, and vehicles that may become permanent. Page 74 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: So,just because it's not a staggering number of permits, we shouldn't consider it? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, I'm not saying that. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But I'm just wondering MR. RODENHURST: (Inaudible) I want to know MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, yeah, good. But just wondering why the pushback on this specific piece for amendment when there's so much more to this. MR. RODENHURST: Because the Building Code allows for this to happen. And this specific amendment contradicts that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, what—we have vehicles right now that have turned into permanent homes? MR. RODENHURST: Regardless, the Building Code allows for this to happen and this amendment contradicts that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Do we have vehicles right now that have turned into permanent homes? A vehicle? Because, we don't have RV parks. They're not stationary for more than 24 hours. In my head, I'm just trying to figure out where do we have vehicles that have turned into permanent residences. MR. RODENHURST: It's not vehicles. It's a structure mounted on wheels. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Well, the wording right now is "trailers, wagons"—let me check—"or vehicle" MR. RODENHURST: That under no circumstance may such structure mounted on wheels become permanent in nature. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Parked and stationary for a 24-hour period used for business and living purposes, however, no such structure mounted on wheels may become permanent in nature. I just can't see in my head anywhere where we have a structure that's meaning a permanent structure like this. That's why I'm trying to see why it's such a big deal. But I'm just listening. I'm just going over my notes. I just want to quickly touch on you have no administrative rules for DPW as a whole or just for the administrative division? Building doesn't have administrative rules? Page 75 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: We're talking about the Building Code and as administrative rules apply to the Building Code through this amendment. We have an Administrative Code. We don't have administrative rules that we have defined as DPW to the IRC. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then the last part of this amendment as put forward, U101.7 Inspections, this was a sticking point in Bill 179 in that in fairness to contractors in the field, unless I'm mixed up here, but page 7, in fairness to our contractors in the field and manufactured home producers meeting the same expectation for public safety, that we inspect when the building is open, as in no drywall installed, the plumbing, the electrical, gas lines, everything. And yet, I'm looking at the wording that was put back in here through Rebecca's amendment, and I'm wondering why she had to add back in that the work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes that are factory when we were so specific about that last time in Bill 179. Why is it that she had to add that back in? Was it not worded well enough as given to us in Bill 44 that we needed to add it back in? MR. TANAKA: I don't know why she had to add it back in. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Why wasn't it there, though? Because, this was a big you weren't here at that point, Mr. Rodenhurst, but Mr. Tanaka was. Bill 179 drew so much contention because we were splitting guys in the field who had done things a certain way and met certain requirements for inspections, which I know full well, and manufactured homes. So MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Help me explain. Help me understand the need for this and why it needed to be clarified because that worried me. MR. TANAKA: Please tell me exactly which section you're talking about again. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: U101.7a. MR. TANAKA: "A." Okay, so, if you recall, in those conversations with (Bill) 179, "a"talks about factory-built manufactured housing outside of the County. We had a lot of discussion with regards to "outside of the County"not being in our jurisdiction. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: My bad. Okay, "b." MR. TANAKA: What part of"b,"then? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's the same thing, right? Manufacturing work within the County shall be inspected in the factory. Did anything change Page 76 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 there? Both in the factory and the site. And it's an interesting switch. But I think, importantly, we talked about language, we talked about wording. It's important to clarify that it happens. MR. RODENHURST: Can I ask a question about the question? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup. MR. RODENHURST: If your question is why did the Council Member put this in there, can I ask the Council Member why you felt the need to put this in your amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Actually, no, sorry. MR. RODENHURST: So, I can't answer, then, why she felt the need to put this in the amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: My question is MR. RODENHURST: That was your question. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm worried that she had to clarify that in this language, and that the code that came in front of us, Bill 44, wasn't precise enough in detail to follow what we wanted in Bill 179 and she had to put this back in. That's what worries me. If we have to go to that level of detail to scrutinize a bill to make sure that what we wanted previously is being followed in the next bill, that bothers me. And I think that's what I'm seeing in her language. And if she hadn't have caught that, "Oh, yeah, it looks good. Thanks. We get the same thing"but it doesn't quite meet. The difference is we have "label" and a "seal." Is there a difference in that? MR. TANAKA: With all due respect, everything that was in Appendix U was migrated over from Appendix L, word for word. We had made no changes from L to U. So, whatever the Council had agreed upon in (Bill) 179 was moved over. MR. RODENHURST: And if I'm not mistaken, Bill 179 became ordinance. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Everything? MR. TANAKA: Everything. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, can I just make a note that your buzzer went off and if you could wrap it up so I can go to some other Council Members, then come back to you. Page 77 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I yield for now. Thank you, Chairman. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I believe, Ms. Lee Loy, your light was on. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. I actually appreciate what Council Member is doing. Right? We could have done this with you folks, but this is a more transparent process. But what I also hear her saying is—and Council Member Kimball said there's stuff we like, but stuff we don't like. And that's why I keep asking the question of Council Member Villegas. I need to know the intent. I think that's what you guys are trying to get to. Is that an accurate statement, Director? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And so, I would really appreciate Council Member Villegas articulating out loud what the intentions are because this almost begins to speak to targeted legislation. We're speaking specifically to a product type that creates an unfair advantage or disadvantage, and I cannot support something that's not fair and objective for everybody, which is the same conversation that we had about big "C" or small "c." Right? What County? So, I would hope, through whatever this goes through, and I'm hoping that either we pull this back so that Council Member Villegas can articulate what her needs are, what she's trying to get to so we can look at an amendment and decide whether or not it's fair, it's applicable, and does not defeat the family of codes because that is our charge. I wanted to continue to follow up on the migrating of the Code, especially the factory-built portion, because there's been a lot of talk about the permitted interaction group and how that's been disassembled when I know it to be the exact opposite. It wasn't disassembled because they couldn't do it. It was because there was a focus. They needed a scope. Can you speak to that, Director Rodenhurst? MR. RODENHURST: I will let our representative to the State Building Code Council elaborate on that. Neal? MR. TANAKA: The State Building Code Council had created the permitted interaction group for factory-built housing. As we were adopting the 2018 IBC codes, there was a lot of discussion as to the applicability of those codes to factory-built housing. There was a definite need to try and put together an investigative committee to identify the challenges that manufacturers have, contractors have, the unions have, the counties have with administering this type of construction. Page 78 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 In all of that, there were comments from the public saying that the State Building Code Council didn't have the authority to provide that guidance to the County. As the County representative, I asked specifically that we get to some common ground so there is a commonality between all the counties within all of the State so that it can be enforced in a fair and equitable way, right. Right now, we are the only County outside of the other jurisdictions that is inconsistent with the way factory-built housing is enforced. So, with all of those questions with regard to scope or challenges with regard to what the scope of the permitted action group was, the bi-weekly meetings, every other week, there was no progress. And the communications that were happening in there were not progressing forward. So, the Chair of the permitted interaction group asked the Chair of the State Building Code Council to help define the scope so that we could move forward in a positive way. There was resistance to how that was presented at the State Building Code Council. And at that point, there were several members of the State Building Code Council that were frustrated with the process, and at the will of the Chair, the Chair had dissolved the permitted action group. MS. LEE LOY: So, that being said, we're back to the Code and the work of the State Building Code Council, right. It would be wise to define a scope. It could be fair and equitable for the entire State on how we permit and inspect all of our factory-built housing. I'm a little alarmed that we're different when the entire intent of the State Building Code Council was to create uniformity of all of our family of codes. Like I said, I really want to hear some clarity around this. I want us to move forward. I think we need housing options without choking out all the alternatives that we have. I'm concerned that there's inferences or inaccurate assertions that somehow some of this work is being migrated over and there's a loss in language when that's completely inaccurate. Yeah, so, Ms. Villegas, if you can begin to articulate what we're trying to get so we can offer suggestions because every amendment so far I have heard either defeats the intent of the Code and/or although they're administrative in nature for the department to administer preempts the Code. So, I'm going to say it again. I cannot support these and it's muddy. It's messy. And I want to hear what the intentions are. I yield. CHR. DAVID: All right, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. This has been a long conversation and I'm confused as well. And I think, undertaking as many of the changes that are being attempted, it was used before but I'll say it: It's not ready for primetime yet. Start with the removing of the building seal. I don't get that. I don't see what the intent of that is. Page 79 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 We spent a lot of time discussing wheels and wheels under structures that would be disallowed. And in my mind, I'm thinking on construction trailers. I'm thinking on some of these classrooms that have been setup. I know those have wheels underneath them. All this would be prohibited, and I'm not sure if this would then be retroaction. So, then, does that mean we take down all these classrooms? Because, I know that's what we're trying to do to go forward is to put up these temporary classrooms. The point was brought up about the volcano and that initiative to put people into housing. Does that preclude all the HUD structures? Again, that concerns me because I don't get it because it keeps reiterating "under no circumstances." So, I do agree with the Director of the interpretation. I'm trying to understand the intent and I'm not seeing it. What really also bothers me is this point about modular homes, premanufactured, whatever you want to say, however you want to characterize them. It would appear—and we had this conversation at great length on the previous bill when we were discussing inspection of. And as I understand, the intent of the Building Code is for safety. Primarily for safety. And the decisions for the Building Code are made around that. Now, when we talk about inspection, not only are these potential modular structures inspected at construction site but then they're reinspected, and I don't understand that. If the comment is made, "Well, that's because in transport if they got a good shaking up, then potentially there could be a safety issue." Okay. Well, then, I could argue back that during an earthquake, does that mean that invalidates all of the permitting and we need to open up all the walls again to inspect? Obviously, that's a rhetorical question. But I don't understand that. And this isn't a new concept. This stuff has been around forever. I went back and looked at something that I had seen many years ago. In 1968, San Antonio had the world's fair. And there's a hotel there, the Hilton, that was manufactured, assembled, put together in less than seven months because it was all modular, prefabricated. That was 50 years ago. We were doing this 50 years ago, but now we're creating what appear to be obstructions to go forward and I don't get that. We keep talking about housing and then we put up roadblocks so we can't build it. We put up roadblocks so we can't use it. And I don't understand what we're doing there. So, I'm not understanding the intent. The modular construction, there's support on the fact that you are building this in a controlled environment so have better control of what you're actually assembling. And then you are putting it together. There's a tremendous amount of construction that is doing that today. And coming back to this double inspection, I understand the inspection. Completely support it. And as I understood, we were going to inspect or have an Page 80 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 entity inspecting, if this is manufactured out of State, that is in compliance with our Building Code, but then pau and we're done. And then, if we add another level, that means that if this is manufactured out of State, they're going to have to change their manufacturing to allow everything to stay open, which again poses a problem going forward. So, I can see the cost of that going up and up and up because there's going to be a custom, which is not going to be functional. And again, so, I guess I'm going to have to come back to asking the intent of what are we trying to accomplish here because I'm not getting this. I don't think we're improving anything. I think we're obstructing a bunch of things. And so, to reiterate, Ms. Villegas, you did talk about splitting all this up. And maybe that's a better way to go, but there's so many inconsistencies throughout this that I still don't understand the intent. And with that, I can't support the amendment the way this is written because I think it is being obstructive. And long story short, I'm not sure that some of this—we've had the conversation about where is our wheelhouse in what we are able to get things done. I'm not sure if some of this stuff is even in our wheelhouse to administer to. So, anyway, Chair, I'm going to yield at that. I've expressed my concerns because I've been sitting here for I don't know how many hours, and I've yet to hear the answer to some questions, one of them being what is the intent. So, with that, Chair, I yield. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else before I go back to okay, Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Health and safety is the intent. It's unfortunate and disappointing to me that some of my colleagues don't get that from the way this piece of legislation was written and presented. But health and safety is the intent—definitely not obstruction but safety. I'm a little surprised because I believe that all legislation should be targeted and specific, hence us mincing words, for lack of a better statement, as we deal with the law. Because as we all know, there's a big difference between "should" and "shall,"right. But health and safety is the intent. I'd like to go back to the HUD structures are covered under Federal. So, this in no way would jeopardize HUD housing and their parameters and what they allow for. I appreciate my colleague Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder asking the question of why it had to be added in because it could be easy to assume that it was purposefully left out because there was so much conversation and controversy around the inclusion of two inspections in Bill 179. And if in fact it was exactly transferred from Bill 179, I would love, Mr. Tanaka, if you could then show me where it resides in Bill 44 because this is what was included. And also having gone through this process before with this Council, I also understand that there'sI could talk over and over and over again and certain Page 81 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 people won't, but we will have to agree to disagree because there can be an opportunity within humans to refuse to understand or to refuse to grasp the clarifications. I also do want to say in clarity, because I did mention the permitted interaction group earlier, but with the information that was shared with me that the permitted interaction group, by Sunshine Law, was required to have scope, but that scope was never defined. And that's why there was a Sunshine Law issue, and that's why it's been disbanded. However, for clarification, by law the permitted interaction group was not to make recommendations to the County and only investigate issues related to the official business of the SBCC. According to 107-26, HRS, it indicates that official business with the SBCC shall not deal with administrative,permitting, or enforcement and inspection procedures of the County. The County has the authority here. In context to some of the testimony that was provided to us, members of the permitted interaction group were the authors of some of that testimony. And I have questions about the appropriateness of that when they were involved in this other organization. As I humbly stated, I am willing to work to kind of dissect, in order for a little more flexibility, for my colleagues to decide what they're comfortable with. However, I understand that there will be people who will be comfortable with none of these amendments, which I find radically ironic for the sake that the conversations we had last time had to do with health and safety around sheathing. And now, we're talking about two inspections, one that happens should something be created on the Mainland or here on island in a location and needs to be trucked somewhere, when being put together, what this asks for is that before closing it up, it be inspected. And remember the T-shirt Hanes, and they all came with a sticker "Inspected by Hanes Inspector" dadadadada? And that was the protocol; every item was inspected. And that's the premise of this, that it be inspected at the manufacturing site and it be inspected once again before it's closed up and put together. The intention is not to add more money. The intention is not to limit the parameters and opportunities and creativity for solving our housing crisis. The intent is health and safety. And when looking at a piece of legislation, which has been identified by our own director of Corporation Counsel, as muddy, to be working through the issues and the topics covered in these amendments, to me, of course it's muddy. Of course, it's challenging. We're trying to navigate a lot of different things here and under a time constraint and push. So, I'm asking for your consideration as this is potentially a very small list of amendments compared to what could be put forward. I mean, there are those that don't even think that Bill 44 should go forward. So, that's what I'm presenting Page 82 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 here and will be bringing. And perhaps the Clerk can guide me through best process now forI mean, do we vote on this? Do I pull it back? How do we move forward? CHR. DAVID: Clerk Henricks, can you please explain the process, either with withdrawal and what that means, etcetera? MR. HENRICKS: That's really your prerogative. If you want to vote on this now as a package, that's what's on the floor. You could withdraw you're amendment and present it in different formats—same words, different words, different combinations of the seven parts. MS. VILLEGAS: Or seven separate parts. MR. HENRICKS: You could do that, too, as separate communications. MS. VILLEGAS: Like we did with budget, kind of when some of the budget amendments ? MR. HENRICKS: That's not a bad analogy. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. MR. TANAKA: Chair, would you mind if I just address Ms. Villegas really quickly? CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. TANAKA: So, you asked where the language came from, specific to inspections, and it did come from L101.7. Section 18 of the proposed bill takes MS. VILLEGAS: Wait, I'm sorry. I didn't get the first round of numbers. MR. TANAKA: Sorry. L101.7 from Appendix L. MS. VILLEGAS: L101.7. MR. TANAKA: Talks about our inspections MS. VILLEGAS: Of which MR. TANAKA: Factory-built homes of our current Chapter 5A. Bill 44 took it from our 5A and put it into 5B. Section 18 of this current bill identifies Appendix L as being repealed and brought into our Code under Appendix U. Page 83 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: And what happened to the requirements for the two inspections? MR. TANAKA: That language never included in the adoption of Appendix L. So, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, however, our inspections talk about MS. VILLEGAS: What about Val's amendments from Bill 179? MR. TANAKA: This language came from Val's amendments of Bill 179. Recommend going back to the communication and the amendment to look at that for verification, but there was nothing that we did underhanded. We took the language that Val moved in and brought it into 179, or 179 and now here. I think the quest for inspections for factory-built housing is in Section b where it references Chapter 5-8-1, 5-8-2, 5-8-3, 5-8-4, 5-8-5, and so on, 6 and 7, to be specific, of our Admin (Administrative) Code, which addresses inspections. Those provisions in our Admin Code talk about walls needing to be open for inspection. So, I just wanted to point out that this language came from Val's amendments of 179, word for word, and we brought it into Appendix U, word for word. MR. RODENHURST: If I could add one more clarification. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that, Neal. And do you mind if I take a look at that afterwards? Can I just look at your printed copy? MR. TANAKA: Sure. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, cool, thank you. I'd just love to see your paper. MR. RODENHURST: And I'd like to just give a little bit more clarification. This verbiage, this comes straight from our Code 5A, Section L. From there into this because factory-built housing is part of this IRC. So, before we go onto Bill 179, this is part of our Code already. I want to make that abundantly clear. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, yeah, because it's safe. But these amendments would add even more safety. It wouldn't prohibit it. MR. RODENHURST: It's not clear to me. MS. VILLEGAS: No worries; it doesn't have to be. Thank you. I yield. Page 84 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. And you know what, I think before you consider what you're going to be doing, I needI haven't had a chance to say anything. But, Ms. Kimball, I'll allow you to just go ahead right now, and then, I'm going to talk and end this discussion. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I just wanted to—Neal or Ikaika, does this bit again about"subject to make any amendments set forth in the administrative rules," if that may be potentially the Administrative Construction Code that's intended there and not typical reference to what we consider what's a department's administrative rules? Would that be a way to resolve this? I can see where you would have to have "be subject to anything that is amended in the Administrative Code,"but again that's "Code" and so it requires legislative process. Maybe don't need to decide or respond now, but just a thought because maybe that's the wording that needs to be there instead of administrative rules. MR. RODENHURST: I'd have to work with Corp. Counsel on that one. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Oh, actually Corp. Counsel is coming up. MS. SCHLUETER: Council Members, while we've been talking, I've been looking at the provisions in Chapter 5, which is titled the "Construction Administrative Code," and I actually have the same question of if it should reference that versus an administrative rule because I think that would make more sense. Because even within Chapter 5, even real quick, it may point to more sections than this but even Section 5-2-2 discussing duties of the authority having jurisdiction, which the authority having jurisdiction is defined as the department. Under that Subsection 2, it does state, "Such policies"—it discusses their job, but "Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in the construction code." And our Code discusses the Construction Code as all of these family of codes that we're describing. So, if that helps. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, it sounds like maybe you're concurring that putting in that language to the Administrative Construction Code might resolve some of the questions but with a little bit more thought into it. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. From what I've been able to review and what I've been able to read, along with our discussion, yes, that would make sense. MS. KIMBALL: Great, thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Okay,what a great discussion. So oh, wait, Corp. Counsel Deputy, could you just stay there for a second? I just have very few questions. You just talked about rule-making, and how is that different from Chapter 91, administrative rule-making, of HRS that binds all of us? Page 85 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, absolutely. So, the Code in the ordinances are not rules. Those are laws that we've created through legislation. Chapter 91 is the chapter regarding rule-making. As defined under Chapter 91-1, the laws and the ordinances are not, quote, "rules" as defined under Chapter 91. So, that's why these ordinances that we're discussing, the Construction Code, is not subject to Chapter 91. CHR. DAVID: Okay, that's the difference. And so, in Ms. Villegas's proposed amendment where her intention is to prevent a department from implementing or creating a rule that would basically—what was the word—contradict what the intention is now, what rule-making process would that fall under? I'm just trying to figure out if this is already taken care of in a bigger picture and not item by item or issue by issue in this piece of legislation. Because, I think there's an umbrella that covers the concerns that Ms. Villegas has in mandating departments or any agency from creating rules that contradict the Code—what we're talking about here—or any ordinance that has a superiority effect. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. So, in two cases, theoretically if the Department of Public Works was to choose to create rules, such as I think I compared earlier to, like, the Planning Commission Rules, if we were to haveif, theoretically, the Department of Public Works had a reason to create rules like that, it would be subject to Chapter 91, subject to public notice and public comment. So, the second part is, as we've discussed, the law would not allow them to contradict the law regardless of if they went through a Chapter 91 process. If those were the kinds of rules they were proposing, it still wouldn't allow them to be in violation of law and violation of ordinance. CHR. DAVID: So, on the County level like we are here, if DPW wanted to create rules to implement how they deal with moving forward with this Construction Code, they would still be obligated under the Chapter 91 requirements. MS. SCHLUETER: I don't want to be confusing either because, as we were stating, Chapter 5 of the County Code does have—it is the Construction Administrative Code. That's already in place through County legislation that's CHR. DAVID: And that determines how they can bring forth? MS. SCHLUETER: If you take a look at it, it has a number. It determines their jurisdiction, their duties, and, if I'm not mistaken, how the department applies the Construction Code. CHR. DAVID: I see. Page 86 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: So, that's already in place. That's there. Any amendments to that would have to go by a bill, come through the County Council, and go through this legislative process if there were going to be changes to that. However, if somebody created some scope where they thought administrative rules were required, it would be subject to 91 and also could not be in violation of the ordinances or State law. As Judge Strance discussed, the hierarchy of that would be State law, ordinance, and then the rule-making process. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Great. I just needed to clear that up in my mind because I was comfortable with what Corp. Counsel had said about we have the rules and procedures already in process to prevent what I think Ms. Villegas is concerned about and the department. And I think, in my own opinion, when we create legislation, I, personally, feel legislation has to breathe because I've experienced legislation that was so specific that you couldn't do anything with it or you couldn't implement anything. So, that's my thought process in this whole thing. And I really appreciate the fact that this will come to us, hopefully, in different parts so we can have a real focused discussion, and not to sayI understand what you were doing, Ms. Villegas, in putting everything in one place, but this is such a complicated matter, I think we can give each proposal its appropriate share of attention and discussion. So, if you're willing to do that, I'll be totally agreeable. MR. RODENHURST: Excuse me, if I may comment on it. CHR. DAVID: Sure, go ahead, Director. MR. RODENHURST: The Construction Administrative Code as well as the codes, we've spent quite a lengthy process going over how we adopt our codes and everything. Reading off 5-1-2 of our County Code, the purpose of this chapter, the "administrative provisions relate to permitting, enforcement, inspections, and related procedures,"that's what that code revolves around for this part of the Code. We're talking about the section over here for this appendix which was previously "L" and now is intended to be "U"through Bill 44. That's part of the Code that we're adopting. That's the recommendations from the family of codes from the State Building Code Council, which we discussed. We can't go below. And we have our procedures of inspections and permitting enforcement. They're providing us their mana`o to these codes on what they see as applicable to these types of construction. So, I am willing to go through what they're providing us. So, when we make amendments to that, I am concerned about that. That's why I have these concerning comments of where is the rest of this going? Have we considered the far-reaching extent of these amendments? And that's where I'm coming from on this. So, I just wanted to say that before moving forward. Page 87 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Point taken, Director. Thank you. So, I'm going to leave it up to Ms. Villegas. The floor is yours. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Richards. I thought nobody wanted to talk; that's why I talked. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. Make it quick. MR. RICHARDS: This isI think it's already going. I heard the intent from Ms. Villegas as far as what she's intent on getting done. I don't understand how this applies, but if it's going to be withdrawn and then reformulated, we can have that conversation at a later date because I'm still unclear. So, I'm not going to take any more time. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you so much. Okay, Ms. Villegas, the floor is yours now. MS. VILLEGAS: Mr. Clerk, could you guide me through the appropriate way to say it? MR. HENRICKS: You'd like to withdraw your motion to amend with this communication? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Then make the request to the Chair and then she'll Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to amend Bill 44 with to Amend: the contents of Comm. 281.17. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Your motion is withdrawn. Now we're back—oh— MS. VILLEGAS: But I do want to thank my colleagues for entertaining the conversation now because my hope is that when things come back they will be a little more concise and specific, and that we endured this today in the hopes of not enduring it again. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. So, we're back to the main motion. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. I'd like to make a motion, and I do appreciate the conversation so far and everyone's headspace for this. Motion to Amend: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to amend Bill 44 with the contents of Comm. 281.16. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. Page 88 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, discussion. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Chair. The amendment you have in front of you is fairly straight forward. The actual amendment itself is the adding of"e"under Section 513-1-7. Section (e)would exempt, as you can see by the wording, "single-family residential projects (R-3) or buildings accessory to a residence which meet the standards as prescribed in Sections 5B-1-3 or 5B-1-5, submitting building plans to the County, that have been reviewed and signed by a Hawaii licensed architect or structural engineer, shall not require additional structural review by the County." Brief background on this: Initially, after meeting with some of our design professionals in the community and contractors both for this bill and Bill 179, it came to my attention that part of the reason our process is so lengthy and it's caused so much delays in getting permits out of the system is that we have an additional structural review right behind a structural review by an architect or an engineer. So, what I see there is redundancy. And it's not so much that we are checking that it's been done, we're actually checking every single mathematical equation that was done by someone whose job and whose license is to do exactly that. It's redundant in my eyes. This comes from the community. This was one of the things that they pushed hard on, and I don't feel like they were heard in the discussions when it came forward. Now, I do have to say, originally, we considered actually removing the requirement for a structural engineer if they followed the Building Code as prescribed. It was an interesting thought. But I did come to find out through HRS that there is a section in HRS that requires all plans—and I could be wrong about this but this is my reading of it—requires all plans submitted to any government agency in the State of Hawaii to be stamped by an engineer or an architect or a structural engineer. It's interesting. So, you can't write that out, no matter what code they follow. If they follow whatever standard, we can't write that section out. But what we can do, if we so choose, is to minimize our review of that—not decreasing public safety because we have professionals in the community who get paid well to go to these buildings, review the structural design, do the calculations, and submit those to the Building Department for their review so the home is built right for the homeowner, protecting public safety. To repeat again, this is only for residential projects (R-3) and buildings accessory to a residence. So, this is not saying commercial buildings. This is not for 100-foot skyscrapers. This is for single- family homes or carports, garages, things of that manner. We scream, "Affordable housing!" We scream, "We need! We need! We need!" This is a way to keep the public safety foremost, yet eliminate extra redundant Page 89 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 work on the County's side, get plans out to the community faster, and do what we said in the beginning, which was find a way to decrease government's angle on this and increase how fast homes can go up, not eliminating public safety. Unless I completely missed something—and if I have, I'm always learning but in this case, I feel like this is a way for us to achieve a lot of different goals at once, and it's a pretty simple amendment. So, I would welcome any comments from you two amazing gentlemen, but I'm going to relinquish after this. Just go ahead and say what you're going to say. I'm going to relinquish to the rest of the Council; listen to what they have to say and we'll go from there. MR. RODENHURST: So, I have one question and that is, are you using this to address our current procedures, or is this to address this bill? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This has to address this bill. I cannot put an amendment out that does not address this bill. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. So, our current procedures, we don't have the IRC explicitly part of our Construction Code right now. This bill puts the IRC explicitly part of our Construction Code, which provides the prescriptive method to design residential homes. If the designer doesn't meet those prescriptive methods, they have the opportunity to design a home to the IBC, which allows for formulated methods following structural design with calculations that require review by a structural engineer. That's in the Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Requires review. MR. RODENHURST: When it follows that methodology where it's not a prescriptive method and it's done to the IBC that specifically states this is going to be a formulated method following structural engineering calculations. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Sorry, what are you trying to tell me right now? MR. RODENHURST: By nature, the IRC does this. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: By nature? But I'm codifying it; not by nature, in exact language. But because it was not apparent to anybody in the design professional community that, by nature, has been addressed, it was this has been a problem for 20-something years. It's pissing us off. Please find a way to address it. MR. RODENHURST: And I'm repeating again, we currently don't have the IRC explicitly part of our Code. If you want to talk about 20-something years, that may be a reason why that's the case. It's an IBC thing. I can't go into every single design. What I'm saying right now is this bill that introduces the IRC Page 90 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 explicitly part of our Construction Code provides the prescriptive methods for our design professionals to design a residential home without the review of a structural engineer, so long as they adhere to that prescriptive method. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, you're saying that if they follow the methods you described, we don't require structural calculations. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. If they follow the IRC prescriptive methods, they will not need a structural calculation review, so long as they follow the IRC prescriptive method. And, Tanaka,please correct me if I'm wrong on that one. MR. TANAKA: You're correct. As I've mentioned before, when we introduced the bill, the IRC is prescriptive. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And if they don't follow it? MR. TANAKA: If they don't follow the prescriptive methods, then they would design the home to the IBC, which is an engineered design, as the Director mentioned, formulated and requires structural calculations to determine and define that design. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Fair enough. What I'm saying is—and to be clear again for you that we're not going to require an additional structural review by the County. I'm not saying we don't require or do require if you're following one code or the other. I'm saying that when it comes in to us, we don't review what's been reviewed by a design professional again. Is it there? Has it been stamped? Is it done? Okay. Check. But what I'm getting from the people who do the work is that when it goes in, every calculation is checked that's been done down the line. And depending on who you get inspecting your plans, if you get the same person again and again, you're lucky. Most likely, you're going to get somebody different, and they're going to check not only the TMK(tax map key) and the address and every other detail on that plan but also your math. And for County folks who are inundated with permitting plans all the time, for the community screaming, "We need our plans faster," do we need to check and additionally review each structural CALC (calculation) that comes in? That is more where this amendment is going. MR. RODENHURST: So, as I mentioned earlier when we talked about the Administrative Code that covers the permitting, enforcement, inspections, and related procedures, it seems to me that that would be more appropriate for the Chapter 5 Administrative Code. It's just my opinion and I'm no legal expert. But my understanding is the implementation of the IRC does achieve those goals, allows us to do that. Page 91 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Now, we'll talk about the procedures of which we're going on. We're working on procedures. Right now, we have EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center) coming up next week. We can go into that, but we're here talking about the IRC Code for this bill. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Point taken. My time is up. I'm going to yield then she can go around and I'll come back. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball, your light was on and I believe then it was Ms. Lee Loy and then Mr. Richards. Thanks. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Matt, for putting this forward. I do, in theory, support this general idea. I think it is problematic that we add this extra layer when there are licensed professionals that have certain responsibilities and liabilities associated with stamping the documents. And I'm always concerned about the fact that we, as the County, are self-insured, and we're the ones with deep pockets; concerned as soon as you stick our finger into the pie, you have a little responsibility for that pie. Anyway, I appreciate what you're saying, Director, about maybe this isn't the right time, and yet at the same time, I kind of do think it could be the right time. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, did you converse with Corp. Counsel about this, about the appropriateness of the placement in this particular part of the Code at this time? Actually, I'll ask that question second. My first question is, what I'm hearing from you, Director, is that because we haven't adopted the 2018 Code, the Residential Building Code, that is the reason we are requiring structural review on residential design. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: It's a good general summary of it that we put forth. IRC is prescriptive method for residential. If it's not met, it goes to the IBC. Since we don't have an IRC explicitly stated in our Code, it goes to IBC. When you go to the IBC, International Building Code, that applies for all buildings. That's going to have some prescribed you have a formulated method that requires the calculations and then we have a structural engineer that reviews those calculations to make sure they're appropriate and accurate. So, that's where we have the structural review come in. It's based off of the calculations that are formulated in the IBC. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I'm going to have to think about what you're telling me. Again, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I do support this in principle very much. Not exactly sure where it goes in and how, but yeah, thanks for bringing it forward. MR. RODENHURST: And if I can add, too, I do see what you're saying, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, about the review. And this is something Page 92 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 that we are working towards at the Building Division to making sure we review appropriately and that we review to the Code and ensuring that we don't have any unnecessary reviews. So, I am very well aware of the community's comments on that and received those comments as well. And we're working to address that. Like I mentioned, this is one of those avenues which we're trying to address it, is the adoption of the IRC. So, I just want to put that out there. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kimball, are you done? Okay, thank you. Ms. Lee Loyoh, Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. Ms. Kimball, I support the intent of what we're getting done. But if I'm hearing this correctly—and, Director,please clarify this this makes all the sense in the world, this amendment, if we stick with the 2012. However, when we adopt 2018, then is that covered? MR. RODENHURST: The adoption of the IRC,without going into the weeds again with the adoption timelines and State—adopting the State Building Code, which would include adopting the IRC, would allow prescriptive methods into our codes for residential buildings. MR. RICHARDS: So, if we accept(Bill) 44, as it's been put before us, that will address the concern of Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder? MR. RODENHURST: I do believe so is my understanding of it, yes. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. All right. Because again, I do support the intent, and that's why this thing is all angled. So, like I said, I do support the intent. But if the way, rather than have an amendment that helps us do exactly what the thing says, there may be redundancy there. So, thanks, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Alphabet soup. I was in the exact same place with Council Member Kimball and Council Member Richards. And what I hear the department saying, move in the IRC as drafted by Bill 44 and we achieve this. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: All right. But I know Mr. Kaneali`i-KI einfelder says, yeah, "I like to get it in writing,"right. Is there a possibility to show him the intersection how this is actually achieved? I think that would go a long way. Because, my larger concern is how this will begin to interplay with all the other pieces of the IBC, the IEBC, the IECC, and the Plumbing Code and the Electrical Code. So, I would love to see a little bit more evaluation around this. But what I hear loud and clear is when we move in the IRC, we achieve this. Page 93 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. RODENHURST: Correct. And the further discussion would be, for my side, is suggesting we should maybe consider this as a possible amendment to the (Chapter) 5 where we have the permitting and enforcement, where we have something that would apply to this, would be more direct. But that's something I would like to talk with Corp. Counsel. Matt, if you want to go into that further, by all means. MS. LEE LOY: I hear it. I mean, I think we're there, half a step away. So, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I did toy with where to put this. But I felt this is important, to get it in. I appreciate you saying, "I believe so,"but like Ms. Lee Loy said, I like it in writing. My grandpa taught me that: Get it in writing, then you know you're covered. By putting this in, it's in writing. It's no longer a"if' or"I believe so." It's "It shall be." I was very specific on the wording, that it"shall"not require any additional;not"may." Not any of the words that are construed as something other than what they may be. Just straight forward, "This will not happen." I would be open to moving it around, but I would like to hear something from you first. There's a lot of different pieces on how and when we require structural design. I had to wrap my head around this. It's lengthy and I feel for the guys who do this every day. And I feel for the folks in your office who are reviewing all these plans, and we have some big changes coming. When we look at wind design criteria, that map has changed. We look at seismic areas. Are you saying that the IBC, IRC which one is it again that's going to overwrite this? MR. RODENHURST: So, the IBC applies to all the buildings. The IRC applies to residential buildings. It kind of—shall apply to design, construction, alteration, movement—goes through all of that. One and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade, plain, and height, and a separate means of egress. And their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade, plain, and height. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's the ones we're going after here, is the residential projects, basically, or buildings accessory to a residence. Correct? And that is, again, the Residential Code. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That makes sense because we're talking about residential buildings. When we talk about residential buildings, let's say Page 94 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 that someone's going to build in Puna, Kohala—let's keep it real specific here Puna, Ka`u. And you're in a seismic area. I think"d" is appropriate for our entire island now, correct? MR. TANAKA: The IRC references a map in the IBC that identifies the island separated into "e" and "d"too. However, there are provisions in the IRC to reclassify that seismic category to "d"too. So, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then wind design criteria is by wind speed zone. Everything below 130 is pretty much safe. But everything 130 and up requires increased structural design criteria. Does that sum it up? MR. TANAKA: So, 130 miles an hour is what is the threshold for wind-borne debris zones. So, there are areas of the island that are under the wind-borne debris zone, and there are areas that are above it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: In those locations, though, seismic and wind zone, you need structural calculations and you need engineering,period. I'm very interested in that you're telling me that thee 2018 IRC, if you follow the above methods, you'll no longer need structural calculations. MR. TANAKA: No. So, if you are above the 130-mile-an-hour zone, right, you need to go comply with the engineered provisions as prescribed in Section R301.1.1. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Now, I noticed that that map has changed. That map now applies to almost three-quarters of the island because whoever designed that wind mapI don't know who it was—did a great j ob at really defining all the areas that are wind prone, which is basically every portion of our island from Ka`u to Puna. But as doing so, they also wrote out a huge amount of the area that can just follow the prescriptive method. They now have to have structural engineering. Just by luck, my district is one of those, Tim's district, maybe a piece of Sue's district. I'm pretty sure Maile's district got nailed, and Heather Kimball's district got nailed too. That map is really hard to read that was given to us in Bill 44. But if you go online and find it, it's not too bad. But I just want to reference real quick it's a 500-year-out study on wind design. According to climate change and everything else going on, with the intention that the wind will be straight on at the building from the coastline. I'm just mentioning this because if it's going to apply to almost three-quarters of our island, three-quarters of our island is going to have to do structural design. Every single one of those drawings is going to have to be additionally reviewed by your team, and they can't follow the prescriptive method. As long as I can—if I'm following this correctly—and this is new to me. I know how to install solar panels and attach things to a roof and what trusses are, but I Page 95 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 don't understand everything. So, if I'm wrong, correct me. But I feel that what I'm doing is addressing an area where you're saying it's going to be taken care of by this Code, but everything else that applies, we're actually there's a bigger problem coming and I'm just trying to get us in front of that a little bit. So, am I on the right track now, as far as if you're not in 130 or less and you're in seismic area D2 or D, you're going to need structural CALCS and you're going to need a stamp by an engineer before you go toI mean, everything requires a stamp. But those calculations, your team is going to have to go over every single one of those calculations. I'm making your job easier, but I'm not sacrificing public safety. And I'm putting it in Code, so there's no interpretation; there's no "maybe." I will give you this could go somewhere else, but I just want to understand what you're saying, if we're on the same page right now. MR. TANAKA: Matt, I appreciate you doing your homework because that's correct. I brought Lyle Carden from Martin and Chock and Carden at the last meeting because he was the one that developed the wind maps. That conversation would have been appropriate at that time when we had the expertise here. However, in general to answer your question, yes, you are correct. Three-quarters of the island is not accurate, though. We can have a discussion on that. In fact, the Big Island is the largest of the counties, obviously, but the applicability of the wind-borne debris on the island,proportionate to the other counties, the County of Hawaii is the most beneficial to use the IRC. So, to answer your question, yes. If you are above the 130, you're going to need structural calculations to assess how to design your home in the wind-borne debris area. But you do not need a structural engineer to do those calculations. Your architect can put those calculations together as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that makes sense. End of story, though, it's still back in front of DPW, and someone is reviewing every single one of those calculations. I'm not saying that's a horrible thing, but I am noting that somebody's paying a professional to do the calculations, based on everything they know about the Code, to submit it to the Department of Public Works, Building Division, for plan review. And somebody in the County is actually checking not just if it was done, but if every single mathematical equation is correct. That is lengthy. As I mentioned before, it's not always that you get the same guy checking your plans when it comes back in and if it gets kicked out. That would be great but it's not the truth. So, there's an efficiency aspect to this I'm addressing as well. MR. RODENHURST: I have two things to follow up with that. One is it's not every single mathematical equation, and two, we only have one structural engineer on staff. Page 96 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And he is the one who checks all the structural drawings? MR. RODENHURST: Structural CALLS. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And how many building plans come with those structural drawings? MR. TANAKA: I cannot answer that right now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Just an approximate percentage; half, three- quarters. MR. TANAKA: I cannot answer that specifically right now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, we'll say half. That's a lot of plans for one man to check. MR. TANAKA: That's an assumption but I cannot answer that specifically. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So MR. TANAKA: But, um MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's okay. It's been a long day; I'll give you that. I did have a floating question. And, Chair, if you can give me some latitude because I feel like this is important. MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, Matt. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. TANAKA: You saidI'm sorry to interrupt. Just really quick. I just remembered is that you mentioned that the applicant would have to pay someone to do those calculations, right. If you're in above the wind zone, you have to do those calculations anyway to define that design. So, you're not paying anybody extra on account of the County. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, agreed. And I'm not— MR. otMR. TANAKA: I just wanted to make that clarification. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's not my angle. My angle is not at all geared towards requiring people to do what they should do for public safety. That's good. But when it comes down to our review process, quickening our Page 97 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 time, which has been a want for decades—and you may be trying to address that, but I just took the step right now to address it. So, as the Council, sometimes we can do things too. MR. RODENHURST: I want to make a statement too. As Tanaka mentioned, this is referencing the IBC. So, it's not just in the IRC, these wind maps. So, again, back to my statement earlier, maybe it would be more appropriate in the Administrative Code section so that it could be addressed there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I hear that. Thank you. I did have one floating question, if I cana little latitude because this is important. I apologize, Chair. CHR. DAVID: I don't see anyone else's light on at this point except Ms. Kimball and Ms. Lee Loy. So, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You might like this, Ms. Kimball. CHR. DAVID: So, go right ahead but make it quick. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Dalilah, I had asked two weeks ago, and I'm trying to just—part of this was looking at the liability of the County. This may be a stupid question, but I just want to hear the answer, if you have one. And I hope you looked into it. Okay, good. So, my question was, who's liable? Who carries the liability when an engineer designs a job and stamps it, and the County is approving the plans? And I think with this amendment you can see where I'm going with this question, yeah. Okay, so, what do you have for me? Did you get an answer? MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. That's a very theoretical question, so I'm going to start that way. I think your question was if the error that's missed causes damage. So, if the architect—if something was submitted that was incorrect and the County signed off on it and it was incorrect and then the building failed, would there be liability on the part of the County? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Close enough. In the instance that something happens to a building; someone designed it, the County stamped it, somebody built it. MS. STRANCE: As a very general statement, County employees and officers have limited governmental immunity. And so, unless there is malice, generally on the part of the County, and there's probably included in that gross disregard of responsibilities or something like that, then there might be liability on the part of the County. So, there's a couple pieces to that. One, will the County get sued? Probably. Will the parry that sues the County prevail in a claim against the County? It's a burden that has to be crossed. Page 98 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 And so, as a general statement, it is more difficult to find liability on the part of the County than it might be for somebody who's outside. So, chances of your design professional, in your example, being found liable is greater, as a general statement, than liability being found on the part of the County. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's a good general answer. I think that is good. That's what I was expecting, but thank you for saying it. And I'm not going to hold you to that. Just want to wrap my head around it. Now, go one step further. If the County adjusts the calculations of an engineer and says, "No, this is correct. Review, check, and resubmit,"who then assumes liability? Because, we've actually adjusted the design engineer's calculations. MS. STRANCE: I feel like I'm in law school for a final exam. Very difficult question, I think, because MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But this is happening. This kind of thing happens, so it's important. MS. STRANCE: Yeah, I mean, in construction litigation cases, which this would be, you have battles with experts. And you would have some opinion as to what's best practices, whether there was compliance with the codes and that sort of thing. So, those kinds of cases can be difficult and technical. I'm hoping that this amendment is pushed off as well because I do have a question about whether the County can abdicate responsibility for oversight of something that it has prescribed. And this is where Dalilah probably has more knowledge—and certainly our department—about how much you can rely upon the stamp of a professional and say, "Okay, we don't need to do a review." And there's a process or there's some mechanism in the submission process where it's easy to flag something that's way off base. Because, you might have situations where you have an impaired professional, for example, who goes around and just starts stamping things. And under your example, there would be no County oversight of that work. And so, I'd like the opportunity to look at what legal obligations the County would have in terms of what level of oversight. And I hear what everybody is saying in terms of getting to the point where you're not micromanaging the work of a professional. But you provide some level of oversight and what is a sweet spot for that, and I think that's the discussion that you all are having. I'm not comfortable saying that, at this hearing, that you can do nothing. So, that's what I'd like to look at. And that maybe one of the reasons that this provision is part of the administrative process is so you can tweak that a little bit more than where it is in the section of the Code it is now; that regardless of where it goes, I'd like us to be able to have a little bit more of an internal conversation, particularly in light of the comments that have been made by the department this afternoon. Page 99 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you for that answer. It was a good answer. And do you want to add something? I have to yield because my time's up again. MS. SCHLUETER: I don't have anything to add. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Dalilah. Thank you, Judge Strance. Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Judge Strance and Deputy Schlueter. I just want to have a quick follow up with each of you folks. The statement was that if we adopted the IRC through Bill 44 and prescriptive methods were followed that Matt provided a pathway to avoid this additional structural review. And then the subsequent conversation, we got into the wind- borne debris, earthquake. My question is, for the majority of projects in our County, are they even able to follow the prescriptive process because of some of the unique environmental challenges? MR. TANAKA: Can you rephrase your question, or at least re-ask your question? MS. KIMBALL: My question, very specifically, is how often could—and this would have to be an estimate buildings built in this County follow the prescriptive method in the IRC, therefore avoiding this additional structural review? MR. RODENHURST: So, currently, that's hard data to come by because we don't have the IRC available right now. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, let me rephrase. Under the assumption that we adopt, through Bill 44, the 2018 Code—okay, what I'm trying to get at, do we need to fix this, or do we not need to fix it because most of the buildings will follow prescriptive? That will allow them to avoid this structural. But what I was hearing from the previous conversation is that because of some of the unique things in our environment, like the wind-borne debris maps, we may not be able to follow prescriptive most of the time. MR. RODENHURST: There's a couple assumptions we make in this statement and this is, where are the building permits coming in from? What TMKs? Where are these locations? We're not going to see them until we see them. Currently, we have it—like I said, we reviewed. Under our current process, doesn't have the IRC. This is something we can look into. That's why I'm mentioning, for this structural review question, that it would be more appropriate, I feel, to add it into the Administrative Code discussion. Happy to have that discussion. Page 100 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 But as far as this one, when we're talking about the Code, this is the prescriptive method and the wind maps that are prescribed by the IRC by the State Building Code Council. So, we'll get back to that, you know, safety versus the administrative rules and everything and the Code, as adopted. These are all part of the Code here. And we're talking about administrative procedures, which are covered under our Administrative Code. I think it would be more appropriate to have it there. I apologize for using the same term that we (inaudible)the same today, but I don't want to muddy the waters more than they already are. MS. KIMBALL: I appreciate that and I think, given what has been said so far, that, yeah, maybe it's appropriate in the administrative portion of the family of building codesI guess that's what we're calling them. Thank you for the education on that. MR. RODENHURST: Well, if I can then. The Administrative Code is more related to but separate from the family of codes. The family of codes is, yeah. MS. KIMBALL: I thought I had it. MR. RODENHURST: Close. I mean, we're all getting close on this one. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, okay, but I still—and I have maybe not asked this question still very clearly. What I'm looking for is a very specific response that, no matter where we fix this, is it something that we need to fix? Because, my previous understanding from today was that if we adopt 2018 IRC and we follow the prescriptive method, then we don't need this additional structural review. My question is, how often, if we adopt the 2018, are people in this County actually able to follow the prescriptive and, thereby, avoid it? Or is it more likely that they won't be able to because of the wind-borne debris and the earthquakes and all that? MR. TANAKA: No, people will be able to comply with the prescriptive element of the Code. I'll point you to the map if you'd like to see. Page 14 of the bill identifies the wind-borne debris, right. And you can see where under 130-mile- an-hour is. MR. RODENHURST: If you have a black-and-white copy, it's very difficult to see. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, it is. As a GIS (Geographic Information System) professor, I have many things to say about the quality of this map. You would not have been graded well. Anyway, okay. So, that answers my question. I do want to have further discussion about this and where it belongs. I appreciate Judge Strance's comment about finding that balance of accepting the professional stamp and some level of review. It has been a systematic problem in Page 101 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 the State to have people that unfortunately stamp that don't really pay attention. Hopefully, most of the architects and engineers out there have higher ethical standards, but it does happen. So, I see the need for a balance of a certain level of review but also a certain respect for the stamp and the liability and training that typically goes behind the professional work. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. MR. TANAKA: Ms. Kimball, if you would just for the record, I'd like to say CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. MR. TANAKA: Yes, the map is unclear. In the bill, the map is not pretty. But the maps were developed by the State Building Code Council and are part of the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) 16 Code. And so, there's also online tools that reference that ASCE 16 (American Society of Civil Engineers 16) and pinpoint locations for the property and tell you where those properties lie on the wind map. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you very much. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And just to make it clear because I actually heard Judge Strance say she wants to hold it on the side so she can further evaluate. And so, I'm guessing there's going to be a conversation or a postponement or withdrawal for them to evaluate. But I also am getting a text message from our architects, and I'm hoping that we can actually engage them because part of this section talks about Chapters 444 and 448E, which gives them the professional authorities around this. And so, I want to make sure this one isn't conflicting in those areas also. I feel like this is something great to chew on. I just want to make sure that Corporation Counsel and even the architects who have to get their stamp—and they actually have to provide insurances behind that stamp because if we do end up in litigation, their stamp is on the line. And then the policies behind that stamp is actually utilized to pay for liability. So, I just want to make sure that we're not putting more people at risk because we're trying to speed up the permit process time but at what risk? So, I yield. I was just I heard Judge Strance say let's put it on the side and evaluate. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else before we you want to wrap this up? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, no one else has their light on, so I'll let you wrap it up. Page 102 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. After today's discussion, I feel like this is actually one of the first things that's come out to actually clarify things a little bit instead of muddy them. I am tempted to just push this forward and ask for the vote. Actually, I call for the vote, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, roll call please. Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 44 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 281.16 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair David–4. Noes: Council Members Kimball, Lee Loy, and Richards –3. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: All right, back to Bill 44. Any further discussion, Council Members? Okay, Mr. Clerk MS. VILLEGAS: I'd like to CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't see your light. MS. VILLEGAS: No, that's okay. I turned it on real fast to talk really quick. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Is it possible to put forth a motion to postpone Bill 44? I truly feel like we need more time overall to look at this piece of legislation and mull it over. And I'm not confident and I apologize, but I'm still not confident that the risk of surpassing the August 31"deadline outweighs the reward of getting through the necessary concerns. And so, that's what— CHR. hatCHR. DAVID: Are you making the motion? MS. VILLEGAS: That's what I meant to, yeah. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Alrighty, is there a second? MR. HENRICKS: Prior to you requesting a second, can we clarify what the motion is? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Villegas, your motion is to postpone to a certain date or our next meeting? Page 103 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. HENRICKS: The next Council meeting is August 4h. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, I'm tempted to say to the call of the Chair just because I know that the can of worms is already the can of worms, but I'm willing to say to August 4h. Vote on Motion to Ms. Villegas moved to postpone Bill 44 to August 4, 2021. Postpone: Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and failed by the Failed following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair David–4. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Lee Loy, and Richards –3. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. The motion fails. Okay, now, back to the main motion, okay. Are we ready to—call for the vote, Mr. Clerk. Vote on Bill 44: The motion to pass Bill 44 on first reading and adopt Public Failed Works and Mass Transit Committee Report No. 8 failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Members Lee Loy and Richards –2. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair David–5. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. (Note: Mr. Inaba voted "kanalua"then "no.") MR. HENRICKS: The motion fails. The bill is dead. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All right— MS. ightMS. LEE LOY: Madam Chair? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: In light of the measure failing, I'd like the Chair to describe what happens now because we heard a lot of conversation around Bill 44 with the vehicle, but now we're actually going to be defaulting in. If you could explain what happens now. Page 104 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. As far as I understand, and I'm going to ask you folks to let us—or Corp. Counsel. The fact that this has failed, we are now defaulting back to which version? MR. RODENHURST: My understanding is we default to the current State Building Code. CHR. DAVID: Okay, which is what year? The 2018'? MR. RODENHURST: I would have to ask Corp. Counsel to verify. MR. HENRICKS: I think an additional question of consideration would be, is, just from perspective of maintenance, what happens to our County Code? If we default to a State Code that does not coincide or isn't in—our County Code is what it is right now, and it won't change unless there's an ordinance to change it. So, that's a point of interest as well. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Did you get that? MS. SCHLUETER: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MS. SCHLUETER: Thank you, Council Members. CHR. DAVID: Could you pull your mic closer to you so we can hear you? MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, I apologize. I did get that talking to. So,pursuant to Chapter 107-28, Section b states, "If a county does not amend the Hawaii state building codes within the two-year time frame, the Hawaii state building codes shall become applicable as an interim county building code." In the plain language of that statute, the Hawaii State Building Code, as it is presently today, is the 2018 version amended by the State. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Is there any other questionoh, Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think the wording iscorrect me if I'm wrong the "interim code"while we find or MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Create and amend our own. Page 105 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. SCHLUETER: It states that it shall become applicable as an interim county code. So, yes, as you're alluding to, once an ordinance is passed by the County, that would supersede an interim code. It does not become a permanent code. MR. HENRICKS: And I add to that discretion, though, that the Council cannot take up a measure that has been defeated in the same Council term. So, that would mean that the interim code would be in place most likely at least until the start of the new Council term. Again, the key word is that the measure be in substantially the same form. So, that could be arguable. But perhaps any attempt to adopt the model codes that would even resemble what has happened here would be outside of the Council's rules at that point, which would leave the interim code in place again until the start of the new Council term in 2022. MS. STRANCE: Council? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Strance. MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. Without jumping into the minds of each one of you, if one of the concerns around the "no"votes surrounds the desire to have some initial additional time, somebody could make a motion to reconsider. And then, that motion to reconsider could be brought up at the next Council meeting. That might be a possibility if there's an interest in still considering some form of the bill but this (inaudible) with the pace or the desire to consider the amendments. CHR. DAVID: Thank you for that. MS. KIMBALL: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Yeah. Having the discussion after the fact has been very eye- opening. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. Point of Information: MS. KIMBALL: A point of information, first. Mr. Clerk, could you repeat the vote on the postponement? MR. HENRICKS: The vote count that I tallied was four in favor, three opposed, two absent. The four in favor were Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Ms. Kimball, Ms. Villegas, Chair David. The three against were Mr. Inaba, Ms. Lee Loy, and Mr. Richards. I assume that was correct. That was for the postponement to August 4h. MS. KIMBALL: So, why are we not—why did we get to the vote on ? MR. HENRICKS: You did not get a majority of the membership. MS. KIMBALL: Oh. So, it's not a simple majority. Page 106 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. HENRICKS: It has to be a majority of the membership for any motion to pass; not a majority of those present. MS. KIMBALL: It has to be a majority of the full membership. Thank you for the clarification on that. Chair, as a member of the side that was victorious on the vote on the bill itself, I would like to make a motion to reconsider. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Is there a second? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, for discussion. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Motion to Ms. Kimball moved to reconsider the vote taken on Bill 44. Reconsider: Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Discussion, Council Members? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I think the intention here is needing a little bit more time. Ideally, we would have postponed. Sorry, I was not clear that we needed a majority of the full membership to have that happen. I think if we had our full membership present, we probably would have passed that postponement without problems but that is irrelevant. At any rate, I think that we also feel like there's time to there's things to be worked on, and we want to take the time to do that. I think that reconsidering, under the circumstances, would allow for that. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, for reconsidering. We need a vehicle. If we want something, we need a vehicle. Ms. Villegas, if there's more work you want to do, we need a vehicle. If not, we default into the 2018, as amended by the State—did I state that right, guys? Okay. I'm getting nods—and it gets clunky. Absolutely clunky. And the goals of creating affordable housing and expedited permitting processes, taking all of those things out of the way and providing a bright line, which is supported by EnerGov, and the inspection processes that go with that to get to attainable housing gets lost. And so, Ms. Kimball, I appreciate your reconsideration. There's opportunities to move it forward but still gives everybody time. And even if we amend on second reading, we would hold it over for another hearing. And so, thank you for the opportunity, Ms. David, for indulging me for this body to understand what the consequences would be. And what I'm hearing is nobody wants to default into something that we haven't had a chance to run by our community and try and get Page 107 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 to legislation and policy that serves our entire island. So, I will be, again, voting in favor of Bill 44 to keep the vehicle alive so that we can continue to discuss. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you for that, Ms. Lee Loy. And, Ms. Kimball, thank you very much for that reconsideration motion. And I need to thank Corp. Counsel also because this has been a really long and confusing day. And after we voted and you came up and opened my eyes of what we actually did, I was just thinking along the same as Ms. Kimball because I really want to see Council Member Villegas's revisions on to her proposals and also Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder's. And had we not reconsidered, all of that would have passed. Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, for reminding us about that. So, on the vote for reconsideration, roll call, Mr. MR. HENRICKS: So, the motion on the floor is to CHR. DAVID: Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have your light on? I can't see on the side. Oh, there you go. Go ahead, yeah. Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: After something taking so many hours to go over so many words and then to happen so quickly, that was kind of interesting. I wish that we could reconsider on the postponement, quite frankly, because I feel that's something that I would have preferred. And I recognize and want to respect the desire of my colleagues to keep the container for our Building Code moving forward. However, I guess after—it's just really challenging to have sat here and what I thought were some pretty straightforward amendments that made sense and had health and safety to have gotten so much pushback on those and so much questioning and implied not relevant. I guess I'm just asking for equitable consideration from the parties that wish to continue moving this forward because all that just happened really fast and then all of a sudden it was dead altogether. So, I think that there is opportunity for a little more flexibility and openness to some of the messages that I've brought forward in my amendments. And so, in trust of working together on that, I can support this transition. But just in all honesty and full disclosure, I'm going to ask for that for—and hopefully I'm not overreaching but also for my colleague Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Because while planning and the codes may not be our areas of expertise, we have access to people who are experts in these fields, and they're utilizing us in our positions. And the fact that we're having the balls to step up and put these things forward even though it meansactually, balls aren't as tough as girl parts—but to step up and step in and to have these hard conversations. And I just really want to honor that and my colleague Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder because it's not a comfort zone. So, thank you for your guidance, Dalilah, today, and Judge Strance. And we'll continue navigating these muddy waters. Page 108 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. And to your point—hang on, Mr. Inabaon the—since this has been resurrected and we haven't voted on it yet, but should it be successful, there is still a couple weeks. MR. HENRICKS: Actually, the motion on the floor is to bring Bill 44 back to the Council to vote on. We haven't accomplished that yet. CHR. DAVID: We haven't voted on that, yes. MR. HENRICKS: If the vote is successful, then what will happen is we'll go back in time to right before the vote was taken to pass Bill 44 on first reading. If the vote is unsuccessful, then the bill is defeated, and then, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. CHR. DAVID: I see. Okay. Add more confusion to this mess. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Is that reconsideration to be taken up at the next Council meeting on August 4h? MR. HENRICKS: No. It would happen now, although I don't want to—well, do you have another question after that? MR. INABA: No, that's it right now. MR. HENRICKS: Okay. No, it would open the floor up now for a vote or other actions that the Council may take on the bill besides voting directly on its passage. MR. INABA: If we vote to bring it back right now, is there an opportunity to call for a postponement? MR. HENRICKS: What I would suggest isalthough we're getting a little bit ahead with that, that's okay. I understand that this is a delicate matter. If it does make it back to the floor, I would suggest somebody who voted on the side of not, or the prevailing side not to postpone, make that reconsideration and bring that motion back to the floor for discussion and then another vote. We're still all close enough to where that still can be done during this meeting. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: I think my question is for those who brought amendments or anyone else on this body. If we bring this back, are there going to be amendments brought forward? If not, we are where we are and we voted how we voted. So, silent yesses perhaps? Okay. Chair, I yield. Page 109 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, my interpretation of all of the conversations today is that there is interest in pursuing additional amendments that were initiated by Ms. Villegas, that they need a little more time in refinement. And so, that's why I supported postponement rather than taking the vote because I think there is still material work to be done and good intention to complete it by the August 4h deadline. So, I encourage folks that did not vote for postponement to reconsider if the vote to reconsider the bill is successful. MR. HENRICKS: And maybe we should just so that we don't get too far into other matters. CHR. DAVID: Yes. Can we please take a roll call vote? Vote on Motion to The motion to reconsider the vote taken on Bill 44 was Reconsider: carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. MS. KIMBALL: Motion to postpone Bill 44 to the August 4h meeting. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Bill 44 is back on the floor. Ms. Kimball just made a motion to postpone Bill 44 to the MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair? CHR. DAVID: Yes? MR. HENRICKS: That motion was made and failed, so it could not be brought forward again, but it could be reconsidered CHR. DAVID: Oh, I see. Perfect, okay. MR. HENRICKS: By those who voted on the prevailing side, which was the side that defeated it. Page 110 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Corp. Counsel. Motion to Mr. Inaba moved to reconsider the vote to postpone Bill 44 Reconsider: to August 4, 2021. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion, Council Members? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's just fun going through the process. Thank you, Chair. MR. HENRICKS: He just remarked that he was enjoying the process. He didn't have a question. CHR. DAVID: Oh—and I'm waiting for you to talk, yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I am enjoying going through the process. It's always a learning experience. And here we are; this is how we get things done. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Seeing no other comments MR. HENRICKS: So, the motion on the floor CHR. DAVID: Yes. Please. MR. HENRICKS: Is to bring back the motion to postpone Bill 44 to August 4h. Vote on Motion to The motion to reconsider the vote to postpone Bill 44 to Reconsider: August 4, 2021, was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair David–5. Noes: Council Members Lee Loy and Richards –2. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. So, the motion to postpone MR. HENRICKS: So, what you have on the floor right now is the motion to postpone Bill 44 to the meeting of August 4. It would be at first reading again. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Discussion on the motion to postpone? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Although I voted against the reconsideration, I want to honor the work. I think we had a very long afternoon talking about this, Page 111 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 and I don't want that work to be undone. So, I actually will be supporting the postponement to the August 4h agenda. I just ask that the department and Council Members sit down, talk story, get it to us so we can begin to evaluate it or provide the evaluation for us. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else on the motion to postpone? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Bill 44 to August 4, 2021,was Postpone: carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David–7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. This matter, Bill 44, is postponed. Mr. Clerk, can we just go to the top of—not the top to Resolution 168 and take care of the rest of the agenda? MR. HENRICKS: I just have a couple of notes to make here and I'll be right— CHR. ightCHR. DAVID: Do you want me to take a recess? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, yeah, a recess please. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. We're in recess. Recess: At 4:20 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 4:29 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Aloha, Council Members. I'm taking this meeting out of recess and proceeding with the agenda. Mr. Clerk, Resolution 168-21. Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business. of Business: Page 112 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Res. 168-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Provides up to $100,000 of County funds for quality assurance services and evaluation of the Kuleana Health project. Reference: Comm. 328 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 168-21. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo, Chair. Give me one second here. CHR. DAVID: Sure. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This was asked to be waived no. It wasn't asked to be waived? CHR. DAVID: Yes, it was. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It was, yeah? CHR. DAVID: Breach and waive. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Waived to Council to expedite funding. So, we did have the Director present but that was hours ago. So, I'm not sure where they are now. Is there any questions by the Council? I yield for now unless there are any questions. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. I think that's self-explanatory. All right, all those in favor of approving Resolution 168-21, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 168-21: The motion to adopt Res. 168-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Page 113 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council Suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Rules: Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Res. 169-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PURSUANT TO HAWAII REVISED STATUTES SECTION 46-7, FOR A WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT GRANT Allows for the receipt of$1,380,000 to be used to assist adults, dislocated workers, and youth by providing training to increase employment, retention, earnings, skills, and literacy. Reference: Comm. 329 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 169-21. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Same thing;waived to Council. We are late in the day, and we've missed a lot of our directors; they may have left already. So, unless there's any discussion or need for questions, we could have it postponed, potentially, but I yield to the Council Members. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. I believe it was my understanding the request for a waiver was to expedite the implementation of the program. So, all those in favor of approving Resolution 169-21, please say "aye." Page 114 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Vote on Res. 169-21: The motion to adopt Res. 169-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council Suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Rules: Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading). (FIRST READING): (Note: Bill 44 was taken up previously, out of order.) Bill 45: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 42 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND MAINTENANCE FUND Aligns the language in the County Code with amendments to the Hawaii County Code approved by voters during the 2020 General Election by redirecting the administration and management of the Maintenance Fund from the Department of Parks and Recreation to the Department of Finance, and removing the requirement that the Commission's composition not be made up of more than a bare majority of any particular political parry. Reference: Comm. 294 Intr. by: Ms. David Approve: FC-51 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to pass Bill 45 on first reading and adopt Finance Committee Report No. 51. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. Page 115 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 CHR. DAVID: If I may, this had unanimous approval at Finance Committee, and I ask for your continued support. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Bill 45 at first reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 45: The motion to pass Bill 45 on first reading and adopt (Approved) Finance Committee Report No. 51 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Bill 47: REPEALS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 41 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE DISASTER AND EMERGENCY FUND Repeals this article of the County Code, which became obsolete upon establishment of Hawaii County Charter Section 10-17 approved by voters during the 2020 General Election. Reference: Comm. 297 Intr. by: Ms. David Approve: FC-52 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to pass Bill 47 on first reading and adopt Finance Committee Report No. 52. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? I just ask for your continued support. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 47: The motion to pass Bill 47 on first reading and adopt (Approved) Finance Committee Report No. 52 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Page 116 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 56: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants —Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act account($1,380,000); and appropriates the same to the following Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 2021-22 accounts: Administration Planning ($150,000), Adult Program ($500,000), Dislocated Worker Program ($230,000), and Youth Program ($500,000). Funds would be used to assist adults, dislocated workers, and youth by providing training to increase employment, retention, earnings, skills, and literacy. Reference: Comm. 329 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 56 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is a great amount of funding for our County, and I look forward to everyone's support. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Bill 56 at first reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 56: The motion to pass Bill 56 on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of THE DAY the Day (Second or Final Reading). (SECOND OR FINAL READING): Page 117 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 46: AMENDS CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE 4, ARTICLE 5, AND ARTICLE 6 AND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 5, AND ARTICLE 6 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PROCESSING OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING APPLICATIONS, AND MAKING CLERICAL REVISIONS TO PERMITTED USES IN THE FAMILY AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT (Planning Director Initiated) The Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations for this request, which would provide language that is in alignment with the impending implementation of the new EnerGov permitting system. Reference: Comm. 296 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) First Reading: July 7, 2021 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to pass Bill 46 on second and final reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. DAVID: If anyone has any comments? Otherwise, I'll just make a note this passed first reading with nine ayes. All those in favor of approving Bill 46 at second and final reading,please say "aye." Vote on Bill 46: The motion to pass Bill 46 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Page 118 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 48: AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF VARIOUS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; FIXES THE FORM, DENOMINATIONS, AND CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS AND PROVIDES FOR THEIR SALE TO THE PUBLIC; AND AUTHORIZES THE TAKING OF OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS Authorizes the issuance of up to $25.5 million in general obligation bonds to fund certain Capital Improvement Projects, including: Papa`aloaPark,Pa`auilo Park, Kolekole Gulch Park, Disappearing Sands Beach Park, Richardson Ocean Park,NAS Swimming Pool,Pahala Swimming Pool, Kahuku Park, Miloli`i Beach Park, and South Hilo Base Yard. Reference: Comm. 308 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: July 7, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 48 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: After fairly good discussion at Council for the first reading, I think we can all move on and just push this forward. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Just again, as I did the first time, I'll be recusing myself from decision-making on this one. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Please note that Ms. Kimball is recusing herself from this one. So, Mr. Clerk—all those in favor of approving Bill 48 at second and final reading,please say "aye." Vote on Bill 48: The motion to pass Bill 48 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David–5. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards –3. Excused: Council Member Kimball – 1. Page 119 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Motion to Suspend Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council Council Rules: Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: All those in favor of waiving MR. HENRICKS: Before you call the vote, I just wanted to note if Mrs. Kimball—Council Member Kimball would be interested in recusing herself from this vote as well. CHR. DAVID: Okay, I'm sorry, yes. MR. HENRICKS: The motion on the floor is to suspend the Rules to waive reconsideration on Bill 48. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you, Mr. Clerk, or Clerk. MR. HENRICKS: I think it's always "Mr."but that's okay. MS. KIMBALL: Clerk Henricks, thank you. I would like to recuse myself from this as well. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All right. So, on this note, Ms. Kimball is also recusing herself from this holdover request. All those in favor of waiving the five-day holdover, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day Suspend Council hold for reconsideration failed by the following voice vote: Rules: Failed Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David–5. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards –3. Excused: Council Member Kimball – 1. Page 120 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 49: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Increases revenues in the Federal Grants —Statewide Multi-Jurisdiction Drug Task Force account($4,927); and appropriates the same to the Statewide Multi- Jurisdiction Drug Task Force account, for a total appropriation of$54,927. Funds would be used to reduce drug threats and drug-related crimes. Reference: Comm. 309 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: July 7, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 49 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is a$5,000 funding source for our County. We had a good discussion at first reading. I look forward to everyone's continued support. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, all those in favor of approving Bill 49 at second and final reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 49: The motion to pass Bill 49 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Before we move on to the next item, I just wanted to make a note that the motion to suspend the rules to waive consideration of Bill 48, it did not pass. You need a two-thirds membership, excuse me, two-thirds vote of the entire membership, which you're one short of. So, it'll be held for reconsideration. CHR. DAVID: Cannot, right? We don't have MR. HENRICKS: I believe the saying "It is what it is" comes into play. CHR. DAVID: All right. It is what it is. Page 121 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Bill 50: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal –Hawai`i Island Landlord/Tenant Mediation Grant account($600,000); and appropriates the same to the Hawaii Island Landlord/Tenant Mediation Program account. Funds would be used to implement a landlord mediation program to eligible households impacted by the expiration of the moratorium on evictions. Reference: Comm. 310 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: July 7, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 50 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is a great funding source for our County, especially in regards to what's happening right now and the looming landlord eviction moratorium lifting. With that said, I look forward to everyone's support on Bill 50. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none— MR. INABA: oneMR. INABA: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: As I did in the first reading, I will be recusing myself from the vote on Bill 50 due to my association with one of the mediation centers. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Note, please, for the record, Mr. Clerk, that Mr. Inaba is recusing himself from the vote on this measure. All right, all those in favor of approving Bill 50 at second and final reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 50: The motion to pass Bill 50 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David–5. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards –3. Excused: Council Member Inaba– 1. Page 122 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, motion to waive the five-day hold on never mind. Withdrawing my motion that I didn't really make. CHR. DAVID: Alrighty, then. Moving on, Mr. Clerk. Bill 51: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants —Advance Health Literacy to Enhance Community Response to COVID-19 account($3 million); and appropriates the same to the Advance Health Literacy to Enhance Community Response to COVID-19 account. Funds would be used to implement the "Kuleana Health"project to provide health literacy services to minority and underserved populations on Hawaii Island. Reference: Comm. 313 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: July 7, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 51 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Another great funding source for our County to empower and better our community. Mahalo, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Seeing no other members, all those in favor of approving Bill 51 at second and final reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 51: The motion to pass Bill 51 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards —3. Excused: None. Page 123 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 Vote on Motion to Ms. Lee Loy moved to suspend Council Rule 15 to waive Suspend Council the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Seconded by Mr. Inaba Rules: and carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David–6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards –3. Excused: None. REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports. (There were none.) REFERRALS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Referrals EXECUTIVE for Executive Session. SESSION: Comm. 299.1: NAKAMOTO VS. KAWAUCHI, ET AL.; AYAU VS. KAWAUCHI, ET AL. CONSOLIDATED CIVIL NOS. 12-1-0466, 12-1-0467 From Deputy Corporation Counsel Lerisa L. Heroldt, dated July 8, 2021, requesting an attorney-client confidential discussion to consult with the Council regarding the above-entitled matter, including a discussion regarding litigation filed by Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, on behalf of his clients Patricia Nakamoto and Shyla Ayau. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I think we have some challenges. MR. HENRICKS: The general motion would be to close file at this point; that can be made and seconded. And then, we can talk about our challenges, I believe, would be a good time to do that— CHR. hatCHR. DAVID: Okay, go ahead. MR. HENRICKS: If there is such a motion. I don't want to presume there is. Motion to Close Ms. Kimball moved to close file on Comm. 299.1. File: Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. As in the previous meeting, I will actually have to recuse myself. So, I think the challenge then becomes because I know Page 124 Hawaii County Council-19 July 21,2021 other members are unavailable. I don't even know if we can get into Executive Session; and looking for guidance from you, Chair, or from Mr. Henricks if we postpone this matter to the next agenda. CHR. DAVID: Okay. I think, based on that statement, I will also have to recuse myself as I have in the past. And so, it looks to me that after my recusal and your recusal, there are only four members. Mr. Clerk? MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, being that there aren't enough members to take action on the motion on the floor CHR. DAVID: We don't have quorum. MR. HENRICKS: I believe the matter is automatically postponed to the next meeting of the Council, which should be August 4. Comm. 299.1 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All right. So, due to a lack of quorum, we are Postponed: postponing Communication 299.1 to our August 0 meeting in Hilo. Thank you. OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Other BUSINESS: Business. (There were none.) ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, MENTS: Announcements. (There were none.) Page 125 Hawai`i County Council-19 July 21,2021 ADJOURN- There being no further business. at 4:48 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David— 6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, and Richards—3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for a long day. We are adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Council Approval: SEP 0 8 2021 AIL61110111111LiP. COUN 'Sr41_ JH/dg Page 126